Customer information during person under train incidents

[KGX]

Personally, I think it’s about time the railway stopped reporting these incidents publicly. Given contagion effects, it seems really irresponsible to be tweeting it out all day, every time it happens.

 

[trainophile]

People need to know why they are being delayed, and even coded information would soon get translated.

 

[ComUtoR]

People need to know why they are being delayed, and even coded information would soon get translated.

I'd rather it be 'translated' rather than blatantly stayed openly.

I know people want to know why they are delayed but more often they like to know "how long" and their onward travel plans. Even the OP didn't ask why. There is rather morbid fascination where people want to report a "one under" or "person hit by train" or those that love to jump in and translate "emergency services dealing with an incident"

There are a lot of people in the industry who get triggered by this sort of reporting. There are also those who, as @KGX, suggests. Who see this as in such a way that isn't healthy and can contribute negatively to their mental health.

The line was closed. Do you really need more information than that ?

 

[newtownmgr]

Personally, I think it’s about time the railway stopped reporting these incidents publicly. Given contagion effects, it seems really irresponsible to be tweeting it out all day, every time it happens.

They never used to publicly announce the reason, but unfortunately in the modern day with social media etc, coupled with everyone’s seeming desire to know every detail of every delay/incident it is impossible to keep it quiet.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Personally, I think it’s about time the railway stopped reporting these incidents publicly. Given contagion effects, it seems really irresponsible to be tweeting it out all day, every time it happens.

People need to know why they are being delayed, and even coded information would soon get translated.

They have to say something, radio silence isn't going to help anyone. As I understand it they avoid going into any detail, and certainly don't officially second-guess the coroner by using the S word these days. Usually the initial information is as vague as "Emergency services dealing with an incident", which is hardly likely to have any "contagion effects" as that could mean anything from a fare-dodger getting lairy, to a fire in an adjacent building, to someone jumping in front of a train. It's a tough balance for the railway to strike, as the more vague the explanation, the less understanding the delayed passengers will be... but at the same time, staff know they can't divulge any of the gory details and rightly so.

 

[LowLevel]

It was looked at at an industry level some years ago and the policy was what they came up with, same as sending out Samaritans tweets etc.

 

[43066]

It's a tough balance for the railway to strike, as the more vague the explanation, the less understanding the delayed passengers will be... but at the same time, staff know they can't divulge any of the gory details and rightly so.

Indeed. Hence they (rightly in my view) seem to have settled on “person struck by a train” rather than “operational incident”or variants thereof, which just sounds like BS. Personally I’d always err on the side of honesty - people are a lot more understanding once they know what has happened.

 

[Horizon22]

Personally, I think it’s about time the railway stopped reporting these incidents publicly. Given contagion effects, it seems really irresponsible to be tweeting it out all day, every time it happens.

People want to know why they are delayed.

Industry guidance used to be "emergency services dealing with an incident" with the exact location not publicly stated (i.e Finsbury Park to Stevenage) to not encourage copycat behaviour and also a media frenzy at a delicate time. However, many TOCs don't seem to stick rigidly to this now.

I think most people have a mental picture of what "person struck by a train" means without gory details (as someone upthread called it) and know that it will be a significant incident, likely to close lines for several hours.

 

[Hadders]

A few years ago the industry did move away from describing these incidents as 'person hit by a train' and simply called them 'operational incidents'. This caused issues because people are generally less forgiving when something is described as an 'operational incident', and the incidents started being described as 'person hit by a train' once more.

Normally whenever I've been caught up in disruption in these situations nothing typically moves for around two hours. If my journey hasn't started I normally retreat to an appropriate coffee shop/pub near to, but not at, the station to avoid crowds. This tends to be a better strategy than trying to travel via an alternative route.

 

[KGX]

people are a lot more understanding once they know what has happened.

Yes, I’m sure that’s why it’s reported as it is. Personally I’d err on the side of caution. Contagion is real & not worth the risk. If the line is blocked, it’s blocked. An ETA on it not being blocked is what people really want to know. If the train has a fault, people don’t need to know the specific issue etc.

 

[Jimini]

Think I've mentioned before on here, but the NR website does have a habit of using a hashtag that reveals the actual location of what's sadly happened.

 

[KGX]

A few years ago the industry did move away from describing these incidents as 'person hit by a train' and simply called them 'operational incidents'.

Hopefully it will be revisited. Might not be appropriate for social media world, when you are reaching people that aren’t even directly involved in the disruption.

 

[Horizon22]

Normally whenever I've been caught up in disruption in these situations nothing typically moves for around two hours. If my journey hasn't started I normally retreat to an appropriate coffee shop/pub near to, but not at, the station to avoid crowds. This tends to be a better strategy than trying to travel via an alternative route.

Of course dependent on location - in many places an alternative route might be more readily available, not prohibitively slower and ticket acceptance quickly agreed.

2-3 hours is the right sort of ballpark for movement of trains.

Hopefully it will be revisited. Might not be appropriate for social media world, when you are reaching people that aren’t even directly involved in the disruption.

As I said earlier, "emergency services dealing with an incident" is often used and location is a wider area.

 

[43066]

Yes, I’m sure that’s why it’s reported as it is. Personally I’d err on the side of caution. Contagion is real & not worth the risk. If the line is blocked, it’s blocked. An ETA on it not being blocked is what people really want to know. If the train has a fault, people don’t need to know the specific issue etc.

Agree contagion is an issue, of course. A compromise might be stating the reason but being less specific on the location.

 

[KGX]

As I said earlier, "emergency services dealing with an incident" is often used.

To be fair, my views on this may be distorted by the TOC that I predominantly use and follow on Twitter. Other TOCs may handle as you describe.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Indeed. Hence they (rightly in my view) seem to have settled on “person struck by a train” rather than “operational incident”or variants thereof, which just sounds like BS. Personally I’d always err on the side of honesty - people are a lot more understanding once they know what has happened.

I’ve certainly found giving the actual reason helps deal with those disrupted, and for them to better gauge what they should do. Just telling people of an incident I find just sees follow up questions asking what it is anyway, how long it’ll take to resolve, “you lot are f-ing useless” etc. I’d almost go as far to say nondescript information winds regular passengers up.

I’ve found people generally react quite understandingly if you tell them what’s actually happened, as they realise/appreciate the severity of the situation and that it’s not just “another railway cock-up”. It also emphasises that the disruption is likely to go on for some time, where as a generic “incident” could be anything from 10 minutes to hours and makes it hard for people to judge whether to hang on or try and find another - possibly longer - route where available.

 

[Starmill]

To be fair, my views on this may be distorted by the TOC that I predominantly use and follow on Twitter. Other TOCs may handle as you describe.

Frequently you find Northern describe the reason as "emergency services dealing with an incident" and Avanti West Coast giving the cancellation reason for a service affected by the the same incident as "a person hit by a train".

 

[ComUtoR]

It also emphasises that the disruption is likely to go on for some time, where as a generic “incident” could be anything from 10 minutes to hours and makes it hard for people to judge whether to hang on or try and find another - possibly longer - route where available.

How long does a SPAD take to deal with and what's the overall impact ?

What about a fail to call or a stop short and door release ?

Does a person getting hit by a train always result in hours and hours of delay, cancellation and route closure ?

The extra information tells you nothing more than the insatiable desire of some to know the minutiae of every single thing and to penetrate the tinfoil hat brigade.

A generic why, followed up by the estimated delay, and alternate service information; including ticket acceptance. Is pretty much all that is needed and will satisfy most passengers.

 

[ijmad]

Frequently you find Northern describe the reason as "emergency services dealing with an incident" and Avanti West Coast giving the cancellation reason for a service affected by the the same incident as "a person hit by a train".

I saw TfL were describing one such incident as a 'casualty on the track' recently and wondered if that was a change in official wording, as they always used to use 'person under a train'.

 

[abn444]

Personally, I think it’s about time the railway stopped reporting these incidents publicly. Given contagion effects, it seems really irresponsible to be tweeting it out all day, every time it happens.

Strongly disagree, by hiding it your just shutting down talking about it and making it more "taboo" and potentially making the problem worse.

People need to know why they are being delayed, and even coded information would soon get translated.

Completely agree, just tell the truth. People will find out anyway and it just gets people's backs up if they feel they're not being told the truth

 

[Gostav]

They have to say something, radio silence isn't going to help anyone. As I understand it they avoid going into any detail, and certainly don't officially second-guess the coroner by using the S word these days. Usually the initial information is as vague as "Emergency services dealing with an incident", which is hardly likely to have any "contagion effects" as that could mean anything from a fare-dodger getting lairy, to a fire in an adjacent building, to someone jumping in front of a train. It's a tough balance for the railway to strike, as the more vague the explanation, the less understanding the delayed passengers will be... but at the same time, staff know they can't divulge any of the gory details and rightly so.

Here's the catch: Passengers and the general public are not fools, and they'll quickly understand what that means. A similar policy is enforced on Japanese railways: in the distant past, fatal incidents would be told directly, then there was a euphemistic word "personal accident", and then people quickly got used to it, almost everyone knew it meant someone jumped off the platform (and killed). Today, some railways started use a more euphemistic term like "person contact with the train", and people quickly know that this is a euphemism for "personal accident".

If such messages are further blurred, the worst-case scenario is that people start to speculate that any vague messages must means fatal accident, leading to railway companies having to clarify that.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Indeed. Hence they (rightly in my view) seem to have settled on “person struck by a train” rather than “operational incident”or variants thereof, which just sounds like BS. Personally I’d always err on the side of honesty - people are a lot more understanding once they know what has happened.

To me, "operational incident" doesn't suggest something that was beyond the control of the railway itself, it sounds more like a euphemism for a SPAD or some other internal failure than a euphemism for a "one under". "Person struck by train" is probably the best way of describing what has happened without disguising it with jargon- which tends to put people's backs up. Though as a passenger the most annoying non-explanation is things like "train delayed due to an incident"... well obviously! Though ones like that seem to be more common with automated systems- I've never heard a real human try to say that.

Here's the catch: Passengers and the general public are not fools, and they'll quickly understand what that means. A similar policy is enforced on Japanese railways: in the distant past, fatal incidents would be told directly, then there was a euphemistic word "personal accident", and then people quickly got used to it, almost everyone knew it meant another Someone jumped off the platform. Today, some railway companies use a more euphemistic term like "someone made contact with the train", and people quickly learn that this is a euphemism for "personal accident".

If such messages are further blurred, the worst-case scenario is that people start to speculate that any vague messages represent casualties, leading to railway companies having to clarify.

Don't know if it's something lost in translation, but "personal accident" sounds to me like an embarrassing sudden need for a change of clothes. I probably favour something along the lines of "person struck by train" because it doesn't use euphemisms but also doesn't attach blame or responsibility in either direction- when these unfortunate events happen they need to be investigated and a motive shouldn't be assumed. Not every "one under" is a s*****e attempt. "Emergency services dealing with an incident" is a bit more delicate but it's also vague- as I said above, it could mean a multitude of things and gives little indication as to how long it'll be before things get moving again.

 

[43066]

I saw TfL were describing one such incident as a 'casualty on the track' recently and wondered if that was a change in official wording, as they always used to use 'person under a train'.

Not heard that one before - that could perhaps mean someone who has fallen off a platform (so potentially not involving a train at all), or someone who has indeed been hit by a train but only discovered after the fact - as sadly happens on occasion.

“A body on the line” is another similar one I’ve heard in the past, but “casualty” is perhaps a little more tactful.

To me, "operational incident" doesn't suggest something that was beyond the control of the railway itself, it sounds more like a euphemism for a SPAD or some other internal failure than a euphemism for a "one under". "Person struck by train" is probably the best way of describing what has happened without disguising it with jargon- which tends to put people's backs up. Though as a passenger the most annoying non-explanation is things like "train delayed due to an incident"... well obviously! Though ones like that seem to be more common with automated systems- I've never heard a real human try to say that.


Don't know if it's something lost in translation, but "personal accident" sounds to me like an embarrassing sudden need for a change of clothes. I probably favour something along the lines of "person struck by train" because it doesn't use euphemisms but also doesn't attach blame or responsibility in either direction- when these unfortunate events happen they need to be investigated and a motive shouldn't be assumed. Not every "one under" is a s*****e attempt. "Emergency services dealing with an incident" is a bit more delicate but it's also vague- as I said above, it could mean a multitude of things and gives little indication as to how long it'll be before things get moving again.

Agreed.

 

[Flange Squeal]

How long does a SPAD take to deal with and what's the overall impact ?

What about a fail to call or a stop short and door release ?

Does a person getting hit by a train always result in hours and hours of delay, cancellation and route closure ?

The extra information tells you nothing more than the insatiable desire of some to know the minutiae of every single thing and to penetrate the tinfoil hat brigade.

A generic why, followed up by the estimated delay, and alternate service information; including ticket acceptance. Is pretty much all that is needed and will satisfy most passengers.

All of course vary depending on location, driver’s incident history, but rarely does the resultant disruption last anywhere near as long as a person hit by a train.

In regards to the last two paragraphs, I can only base my opinion on personal experiences over 18 years as a frontline staff member in roles helping passengers at stations and on board trains during the fallout of such incidents on a busy commuter network. Whether typical reactions from passengers vary based on whether they are regular commuters or long distance leisure travellers I don’t know, but it definitely has been noticeable in how typical reactions have varied in line with how the TOCs I’ve worked for have varied how they report these incidents at any given time. It’s not in common at all to have someone shouting in your face suddenly calm down when you expand more on the reason.

But like I say, I can only base this on personal experience. I’d be interested to know if that’s an experience others have had or not.

 

[Mojo]

I saw TfL were describing one such incident as a 'casualty on the track' recently and wondered if that was a change in official wording, as they always used to use 'person under a train'.

London Underground stopped using "person under a train" in public-facing announcements and publicity around a decade ago, and even before that for many years, the location was strictly not specified. Local staff retain their discretion to better describe the incident in face-to-face communications with customers.

 

[ComUtoR]

In regards to the last two paragraphs, I can only base my opinion on personal experiences over 18 years as a frontline staff member in roles helping passengers at stations and on board trains during the fallout of such incidents on a busy commuter network.

How many passengers know how long each 'incident' takes to deal with. I've seen both SPADs and Suicides have zero delay minutes.

18yrs of frontline experience doesn't mean that everyone else has that same insider knowledge. Giving passengers information they need and can act upon far exceeds the finite details of every incident.

 

[KGX]

London Underground stopped using "person under a train" in public-facing announcements and publicity around a decade ago, and even before that for many years, the location was strictly not specified. Local staff retain their discretion to better describe the incident in face-to-face communications with customers.A

A sensible approach.
Multiple tweets per incident, potentially reaching many thousands of followers that are not even disrupted, less sensible.
In my opinion.

 

[Flange Squeal]

18yrs of frontline experience doesn't mean that everyone else has that same insider knowledge. Giving passengers information they need and can act upon far exceeds the finite details of every incident.

No it doesn’t, nor did I ever claim that. I’m merely sharing experiences gained over that time, which showed a claim made that seemingly spoke on behalf of everyone might actually just be an opinion rather than representative of all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you tell people why there’s a delay then people will understand. “Operational incident” sounds like a cop out. “Emergency services attending an incident” means people understand. They can infer the rest. If passengers know someone’s topped themselves then, funnily enough, passengers are more understanding of the delay. As much as anything, “person under a train” means several hours to clean up, go to the pub and try again later. “Operational incident” could be anything.

I don’t understand the fear around “copycat incidents”. I think it’s wise to not broadcast the location nor refer explicitly to suicide, as a mark of respect as much as anything, but beyond that, I don’t understand. People who are suicidal are usually able to work how where might be a good spot to do it.

 

[Dryce]

Personally, I think it’s about time the railway stopped reporting these incidents publicly. Given contagion effects, it seems really irresponsible to be tweeting it out all day, every time it happens.

I think on balance from a public service point of view it's probably better to let passengers know some details so they can adjust their expectations regarding their journey.