Customer information during person under train incidents

[Parallel]

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 think it largely depends on the TOC. Transport for Wales use ‘a person being hit by a train’, as did GWR until recently, but they seem to have switched to ‘emergency services dealing with an incident’ for the recent unfortunate couple of incidents.

I think ‘a fatality’ would be a potentially less blunt reason.

 

[Horizon22]

This document from ATOC back in 2016 on the very last page (PIDD-50) suggests the change was made to "emergency services dealing with an incident" based on advice from Samaritans.

It seems to have slipped recently, although there is perhaps more recent, up-to-date guidance.

 

[Bertie the bus]

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'm not sure if it is still the same but that was also the case with EMT (PHBT) and TPE (Emergency services). So if you were at Manchester Piccadilly wanting to travel to Sheffield you could be delayed by both a person being hit by a train and emergency services dealing with an incident.

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.

Which is exactly why the announcement should be person hit by a train. Regular travellers will know that is likely to mean the line is closed for usually between 1 1/2 and 3 hours and can make decisions based on that. Just saying there is an incident or the line is closed is of no help whatsoever and once when on a station where the emergency services dealing with an incident recording was played a fellow passenger rang a friend and said the trains were stopped due to a terrorist attack! Emergency services dealing with an incident is meaningless and gives those with little knowledge of what it means no indication of what is happening or how long they will be delayed.

 

[Horizon22]

Which is exactly why the announcement should be person hit by a train. Regular travellers will know that is likely to mean the line is closed for usually between 1 1/2 and 3 hours and can make decisions based on that. Just saying there is an incident or the line is closed is of no help whatsoever and once when on a station where the emergency services dealing with an incident recording was played a fellow passenger rang a friend and said the trains were stopped due to a terrorist attack! Emergency services dealing with an incident is meaningless and gives those with little knowledge of what it means no indication of what is happening or how long they will be delayed.

It isn't of no help. If the emergency services are dealing with an incident, it is an evidently serious matter and they might take over the situation.

The delay reason is not the only tool used; disruption messaging should follow a problem / impact / advice framework and expected time until the situation is resolved is one of them.

 

[Scott1]

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.

I can't speak for other people's experiance, but most of the regular commuters in my area will want to know what the delay is, and where, as experiance has given them a good idea of what to do next. For example if the problem is in a very rural area, or in the city, affects response time. The nature of what happens too, a 'signal failure' could be 4 hours or 40 mins, but a person struck by a train is usually about 2 hours, a broken down train is usually about 2 hours too. A broken rail is likely to be an all day problem, especially in rural areas. An experiance passenger will use the information to decide there next move, and my job is to help them make that choice as best I can.

It's a balance between keeping people informed and not giving them information that is too complicated (jargon) or too vague.

This particular topic was, as has been mentioned above, reviewed fairly recently, and the choice to say struck by a train, settled on. Using diffrent language, like Japan's "human incident" doesn't disguise the issue, as people are going to realise what that is, or ask a staff member who is then going to explain anyway.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The delay reason is not the only tool used; disruption messaging should follow a problem / impact / advice framework and expected time until the situation is resolved is one of them.

Should but never is, especially at unmanned stations where all you get are auto-announcements. Even at major stations there is rarely useful announcements regarding potential alternative routes or likely length of delay.

 

[Scott1]

Should but never is, especially at unmanned stations where all you get are auto-announcements. Even at major stations there is rarely useful announcements regarding potential alternative routes or likely length of delay.

The problem with giving people a time for how long disruption is expected to last, is that some people don't grasp what an estimate is, and just use it as a promise, when really it's a bit of a length of string guess.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The problem with giving people a time for how long disruption is expected to last, is that some people don't grasp what an estimate is, and just use it as a promise, when really it's a bit of a length of string guess.

That is no excuse for not providing people who do grasp what an estimate is with information.

 

[Scott1]

That is no excuse for not providing people who do grasp what an estimate is with information.

I suppose the other issue is that it is just a blind guess. Usually a person hit by a train, in a city location, takes two hours. If there's no one available for the body, make that 3 or 4, if it is suspicious then it could be 6 or more. Which number do I give out?

 

[Bertie the bus]

I suppose the other issue is that it is just a blind guess. Usually a person hit by a train, in a city location, takes two hours. If there's no one available for the body, make that 3 or 4, if it is suspicious then it could be 6 or more. Which number do I give out?

I get the impression you are just trying to come up with reasons why you shouldn't try to help passengers get to their destination in the most timely manner possible.

 

[bramling]

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.

Damned if do, damned if don’t.

Tweet it out and there might be some copycat effect. Don’t tweet it out and staff take a whole load of extra abuse.

Can’t win either way.

Personally, I’m all for honesty. Giving people the real reason treats them like adults, and allows them to make an informed decision regarding their travel situation.

 

[Scott1]

I get the impression you are just trying to come up with reasons why you shouldn't try to help passengers get to their destination in the most timely manner possible.

Not at all, as I said above, I try to give as much info as I can, as my job is to help people make an informed decision about what they want to do next. My question is a genuine one, and I like to know what your answer is, as it is a genuine reality of this type of incident.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Not at all, as I said above, I try to give as much info as I can, as my job is to help people make an informed decision about what they want to do next. My question is a genuine one, and I like to know what your answer is, as it is a genuine reality of this type of incident.

It isn't really an issue is it? If you tell somebody the delay is likely to be 2 - 3 hours but if they catch a train to x they can then change to another train to get to their destination they are extremely unlikely to still be stood around 3 hours later to discover the delay is actually gong to be 5 hours.

 

[Scott1]

It isn't really an issue is it? If you tell somebody the delay is likely to be 2 - 3 hours but if they catch a train to x they can then change to another train to get to their destination they are extremely unlikely to still be stood around 3 hours later to discover the delay was really 5 hours.

Then what was the point of giving a time estimate at all? If it is just a blind guess at between 2 hours and 5 it's not useful.

Im afraid I'm unconvinced that it is anymore use than just telling someone what has happened and letting them decide how to proceed with that information and the alternative routes (if there is one of course).

 

[Bertie the bus]

Then what was the point of giving a time estimate at all? If it is just a blind guess at between 2 hours and 5 it's not useful.

Im afraid I'm unconvinced that it is anymore use than just telling someone what has happened and letting them decide how to proceed with that information and the alternative routes (if there is one of course).

Seeing as the post of mine you quoted didn't just mention giving an estimate but also stated passengers should but aren't given useful information on alternative routes I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. You are the one who stated the length of time to recover from PHBTs can vary and used it as a reason for not giving passengers additional information to make their journey as smooth as possible.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

Personally I don’t see what’s wrong with “An incident caused by an action of a member of the public”

We don’t actually need to know what it was.

All we need is an indication that it was caused externally to the railway itself, and a useful good faith estimate of what the impact will be.

In my experience it is the lack of a useful good faith estimate that causes problems, not a more detailed description of the incident itself.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

“Emergency services attending an incident” means people understand. They can infer the rest.

Just to muddy the waters further, I am aware of at least one TOC which uses this phrase to also cover instances where a passenger has collapsed on the platform and is receiving medical attention ( while the platform in question was closed and trains running through without stopping ).

In these instances it's obvious because the trains are at least still running as opposed to everything being at a standstill, but it can confuse things somewhat - I can forsee people complaining that "last time they told us this the train kept running!"

 

[KGX]

This document from ATOC back in 2016 on the very last page (PIDD-50) suggests the change was made to "emergency services dealing with an incident" based on advice from Samaritans.

It seems to have slipped recently, although there is perhaps more recent, up-to-date guidance.

Interesting. I wonder what the current guidelines are. Seems to vary by company.

Compare and contrast the effected TOCs twitter accounts for today.

Lumo/Hull
Due to the emergency services dealing with an incident between #LondonKingsCross and #Stevenage all lines are blocked. Train services running to and from these stations may be delayed. Disruption is expected until 16:30

Thameslink (one tweet. 64k reach. updates threaded)
“It is with great sadness that we report a person has been hit by a train between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace Stations. All services running to or between these stations will be delayed or cancelled whilst the emergency services work to deal with this incident.

LNER (over 20 tweets mention person hit by train . Can't tell what the unique reach is as there are so many tweets. One below reached around 35k)
#LNERUpdate it is with great sadness that we report that a person has been hit by a train. All lines between #LondonKingsCross and #Peterborough are blocked. Train services running between these stations may be cancelled or delayed.

The Samaritans do have guidance for news media reporting,

https://media.samaritans.org/documents/Guidance_for_reporting_rail_suicides_FINAL.pdf

. Given that they work so closely with the rail industry, I presume they give guidance for reporting information to passengers. I'm surprised the train companies handle it differently.

Top marks to FirstGroup in my opinion.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

---

Just to muddy the waters further, I am aware of at least one TOC which uses this phrase to also cover instances where a passenger has collapsed on the platform and is receiving medical attention ( while the platform in question was closed and trains running through without stopping ).

In these instances it's obvious because the trains are at least still running as opposed to everything being at a standstill, but it can confuse things somewhat - I can forsee people complaining that "last time they told us this the train kept running!"

An action by a member of the public means that trains will be non-stopping at X.

We need the “means that”.

We don’t need to know what happened that caused it.

It isn’t useful.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This document from ATOC back in 2016 on the very last page (PIDD-50) suggests the change was made to "emergency services dealing with an incident" based on advice from Samaritans.

It seems to have slipped recently, although there is perhaps more recent, up-to-date guidance.

There is a link to the research here: https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/publication/communicating-suicides-on-the-railway/

It was conducted using focus groups. Others may have a different opinion but my opinion is you are not going to get honest opinions from a focus group. Suicide is a very sensitive subject and if you put random people together in a group to discuss it their main concern is going to be not appear heartless to the others in the group, so the majority are just going to say or agree with what they think they should say or agree with rather than what they actually think.

 

[Craig1122]

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.

My experience matches pretty much exactly with yours. Attempting to give people a vague explanation will only result in them asking more questions until you come round to the truth anyway.

Regulars have a pretty good idea what the impact of particular incidents will be. I've only once had someone be difficult following a person under a train. They generally want to know when it started so they can make a reasonably informed decision about whether to use an alternative route or come back in an hour or two.

I think 'emergency services dealing with an incident' is fine as an overall explanation, for example on CIS or tweets summarising the incident. But it's pointless actively trying to hide the reason, especially in an era with camera phones,social media etc. I've seen that a few times with TOC SM with other incidents and they just end up looking stupid.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

The problem is with vagueness about the impact.

There is a difference between an impact that is fairly reliably 20 minutes and one that is unreliably several hours. I need to know which it is.

Telling me more about what the incident was doesn’t tell me anything more about what to do about it.

What I need to know is what to do.

I expect you to have useful advice on what to do.

Why I have to do it doesn’t really change anything. I still have to do it anyway.

Last. Best to you.

 

[185143]

The one time I've been on a train involved in such an incident, I did wonder what the conductor was going to tell us. Emergency brake applications from linespeed aren't done lightly, after all.

We were told initially that there was reports of an incident near the station (half of the train was platformed when we stopped), which required the Fire service to establish exactly what had taken place. We were then unsurprisingly surrounded by blue lights, then once it was formally a confirmed fatality, we were told as such and advised we were stuck until the relevant services had done their work, so we may be delayed for some time.

What should/needs to be said is different depending on wether you're at a station, on social media or unfortunate enough to be onboard.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Exactly this, people are likely to be a bit more understanding if there's been a sad accident rather than some generic operational message relayed. Furthermore it will almost certainly have been witnessed by someone with access to social media, and that news will spread quickly.

I was once on a train that hit someone and there was no getting away from what had happened. Obviously the guard had to explain why the driver couldn't continue, and that we would have to await a relief driver to arrive and take over, which given we were just east of the Thackley tunnel between Shipley and Leeds meant the only access was a drive to Apperley Bridge (this was in 2008 before the station had opened), then a walk along the Leeds Liverpool canal to reach the nearest rail access point. The fact that there had been a sad fatality and the driver was obviously in distress meant passengers where more understanding of the delay which ultimately was over 2 hours.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

Many, many years ago we just used to say, bluntly, 'person struck by train at x'. The more vague location was introduced for the reasons you say, and also to stop ghouls heading to site for a look.

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

Very much so, it makes life much easier for the staff concerned.

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".

IIRC the guidance, some years ago now, went from 'emergency services etc' back to 'person hit by a train', but not every Operator updated their messaging.

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

I had two suicides with zero delay minutes, or cancellations, but they were unique circumstances. Any incident involving a train will inevitably cause heavy delay. Apart from which, if a fatality is not disrupting the service there would be no need to tell passengers anything in the first place!

I suppose the other issue is that it is just a blind guess. Usually a person hit by a train, in a city location, takes two hours. If there's no one available for the body, make that 3 or 4, if it is suspicious then it could be 6 or more. Which number do I give out?

Start by saying at least 2 hours.

Then what was the point of giving a time estimate at all? If it is just a blind guess at between 2 hours and 5 it's not useful.

Because it allows passengers to make a choice, if they are able to leave their train, on whether to wait, seek alternative travel, or return home.

 

[emoaconr]

About four years ago, one of my closest friends tragically died by suicide on the railway, at a young age and at what most people consider the peak of life.

Before this happened, yes I found the phrasing of the delay excuse rather blunt, it often being heard used by automatic station announcers in the same voice and manner as any other reasoning, for example 'over running engineernig works' and a 'signalling problem'. It was just one of a group of phrases that were just part of this almost faceless, corporate machine that we have become accustomed to in the world of expectation and compensation.

After this happened, these phrases now that have become extremely jarring to me; a sense of fixation almost. Time does go some way to heal, but it never erases entirely. These days, I remember that these thoughts are only momentary, and I have developed resilience and control to deal with these situations.

When I see these situations today, what I find the most distressing is the constant desire to react or offer opinion on anything and everything on social media. When a local paper, the BTP or a TOC posts regarding delays as a consequence of these incidents, it is a constant stream of people complaining about delays or speculating on the identity of the deceased, or the ongoing commentary from somebody aboard the train in question. Equally, the reaction upon announcement of these situations in railway stations evokes very public resentment and anger in some. I understand however there is probably a less vocal majority, and there are people who offer comment of genuine emotion or empathy.

I wholeheartedly understand that this is not a situation that is going to be eradicated any time soon, if ever; equally I also get that it isn't just the railways that are affected in this way. But honestly, whatever way these events are worded by the railways, people know what it truly means. I do agree that 'person hit by a train' is probably the most graphic way I would not like to imagine, or be reminded of, the situation. But as other contributors have alluded to, the dysphemistic and blunt description can have an effect on passengers which aids their empathetic understanding of the situation. I understand what is unpleasant to some, is purposeful and aids contextualisation for others.

We live in a connected, live society where we are highly routined and often desensitised to many of the things we see and experience around us. Equally, when these things happen on a personal level, it can be incredibly difficult to build up resilience to return near to these societal norms and expectations. I'm not directly criticising those things - I just see the argument that Samaritans and others have made here from a range of angles.

 

[TUC]

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.

So what do you want? People to be delayed without any explanation? How would that be good customer care?

 

[Horizon22]

I get the impression you are just trying to come up with reasons why you shouldn't try to help passengers get to their destination in the most timely manner possible.

Not at all - it is an estimate and only an estimate. At major stations there are more detailed screens which do say “disruption is expected until XX:XX” as will banner alerts on journey planners.

 

[superkopite]

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.

What do you mean when you say "contagion effects"? Are you suggesting that the more it is tweeted about the more people will commit suicide on the railways?

 

[eldomtom2]

Personally I don’t see what’s wrong with “An incident caused by an action of a member of the public”

That would imply, before investigations were concluded, that the blame should lie with the person hit by the train, which would be entirely inappropriate.