• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Delays caused by slow or poor decision-making by overstretched controllers

Status
Not open for further replies.

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,059
In the large listing of all conceivable delay causes for attribution purposes is there a contingency which acknowledges the possibility of a delay being incurred because of overstretched controllers (however it may be couched in the wording)?
I witnessed an apparent such instance today in a major station where incoming longer distance trains were terminating late due to disruption and sets and crews were being stepped up where possible on return journeys to mitigate the disruption. Twenty-five minutes prior to an advertised departure there were two potential sets to make the service at platforms which were poles apart from each other. At this point a driver phoned "upstairs" to let them know he and the train manager who were booked to work the service were happy to have a quicker than usual turn-round break and just needed to know which of the two sets would be making the service. He was told "they" would get back to him. In the intervening period up to the departure time intending passengers came up to the driver who was waiting beside one of the potential sets to ask him which platform the train would be going from.
His reply was that we were "waiting for someone to make a decision but the train wouldn't be going anywhere without him as he was its driver".
A minute or two after the departure time it came over the tannoy and on the boards that it would be the set which was not one the driver had thought more likely and which he had been standing beside with the guard. The service left 15L. I accept that I (and driver) might not have had the full picture of why it took so long for the decision to be made. However in circumstances like this there is presumably the potential for a delay to be totally attributed to Network Rail for the original infrastructure related disruption (which was what happened) even although more switched-on "upstairs" TOC managers could have achieved an on-time departure.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,415
even although more switched-on "upstairs" TOC managers could have achieved an on-time departure.
This probably wont have been managers making the decision , it would have been controllers who are covering a whole network making decisions like this about train running based on a number of factors not just what seems to staff on the ground to be obvious .

And whilst not sure if this would have been a factor in this particular incident but I can say from knowing a few controllers pressures from short staffing and poor morale are not just confined to the customer facing ranks of train operating company employers .
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,087
Location
Bolton
Some operators don't really have enough staff in their control for the workload which disruption is likely to create. During the most severe disruption there may be a short delay even with the best-staffed operations. It could also be that they were covering for a shortage, again, likely caused by not having enough staff.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
5,345
Some operators don't really have enough staff in their control for the workload which disruption is likely to create. During the most severe disruption there may be a short delay even with the best-staffed operations. It could also be that they were covering for a shortage, again, likely caused by not having enough staff.
Just to add, that most controls operate with 1 person per desk, eg 1 for Train Crew, 1 for Rolling stock, 1 route control manager etc, each trying to work together to deliver the best service they can, however while trying to do that, getting inundated with phone calls from every man and there dog, whilst trying to decide what to do, therefore actually hampering them.

I know for example in disruption a train crew controller can easily get upwards of 500+ phone calls in an 8 hour disruption shift.

I think is very disrespectful for the OP to say is there a ‘sloppy management’ delay code, no manager intentionally goes to work to make a sloppy decision , they make the choices they believe are correct at that time, often with only seconds to make that decision, do they get it right all the time? Of course not! Do they look bank and wish they had done things differently? Most definitely!
 

CAF397

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2010
Messages
1,094
Location
Lancashire
I know for example in disruption a train crew controller can easily get upwards of 500+ phone calls in an 8 hour disruption shift.

Really? There's 480 minutes in 8 hours. Not including mandatory breaks. Nigh on impossible to receive that many phone calls and still function.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
5,345
Really? There's 480 minutes in 8 hours. Not including mandatory breaks. Nigh on impossible to receive that many phone calls and still function.
We can audit phone calls and see how many calls come in over a certain period!
It is possible to have that many calls coming in!
 
Last edited:

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,059
Just to add, that most controls operate with 1 person per desk, eg 1 for Train Crew, 1 for Rolling stock, 1 route control manager etc, each trying to work together to deliver the best service they can, however while trying to do that, getting inundated with phone calls from every man and there dog, whilst trying to decide what to do, therefore actually hampering them.

I know for example in disruption a train crew controller can easily get upwards of 500+ phone calls in an 8 hour disruption shift.

I think is very disrespectful for the OP to say is there a ‘sloppy management’ delay code, no manager intentionally goes to work to make a sloppy decision , they make the choices they believe are correct at that time, often with only seconds to make that decision, do they get it right all the time? Of course not! Do they look bank and wish they had done things differently? Most definitely!
As the OP, I accept that the term 'sloppy management' was ill-advised and have edited it to "overstretched controllers" based on the feedback from yourself and other contributers.
 

Bow Fell

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2020
Messages
295
Location
UK
Really? There's 480 minutes in 8 hours. Not including mandatory breaks. Nigh on impossible to receive that many phone calls and still function.

Breaks?! No such thing as a break sometimes, in a control environment most of the time you are lucky to run out to the microwave then bring something back and eat it at your desk.

I’ve done 12 hour shifts where the job has been knackered all day and have not moved from the chair except for a quick toilet break.

One of the point I always make so sorry to repeat the point is that you aren’t just running a train service, you’re running a maintenance plan and that is critical to some of the decisions made to recover the service.

It’s a shame the comments made by the OP.

Being a Duty Control Manager having also been a Maintenance Controller and a Train Service Controller and Customer Service Controller is the best job in the world, no one goes out of their way to make poor decisions. It’s in everyone interest to put the job back together ASAP.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,224
Really? There's 480 minutes in 8 hours. Not including mandatory breaks. Nigh on impossible to receive that many phone calls and still function.
They might not be able to answer them all but I can believe the headline number of inbound calls.

One of the main initiatives with control teams over the last x number of years has been to try and bring as many controllers as possible under the same roof to avoid reliance on a single person answering the phone during disruption.

We have a rail emergency control number that *will* be answered but otherwise you have to queue.
 

BrummieBobby

Member
Joined
16 May 2022
Messages
146
Location
Birmingham
In my experience as a signaller, during periods of extensive disruption or degraded working, there is often large amounts of sometimes conflicting information that has to be understood and acted on appropriately.

In my experience, the best controllers are the ones who consider the information available to them and communicate their requirements to the signaller clearly and concisely, but above all do not bombard us with multiple, conflicting phone calls; whilst I understand that circumstances can change quickly, as a signaller one phone call suggests that Control decisions are confident and certain Multiple, conflicting calls suggests uncertainty.
 

Roger1973

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2020
Messages
748
Location
Berkshire
I can't speak as someone who's ever tried to control trains, but having done it with buses, would point out

1 - there are times the phone rings (or someone comes on the radio) with problem B before you can deal with problem A. Problem B might be more urgent, or it might louse up how you were about to deal with problem A.

2 - there are times when there is an apparent quick and obvious solution to problem A if that's all you think about, but doing that will create a much bigger problem some time later, so the right solution takes two or three steps.

And I would imagine with trains it's more difficult to just park a train that you don't have a driver / train crew for...
 

Ducatist4

On Moderation
Joined
29 Apr 2019
Messages
988
Location
Mansfield
The set that the driver thought he would be driving might have needed to be somewhere else later that day - going in for maintenance for example - the driver wouldn't be aware of that.
 

AngusH

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
579
Information flow as ever is always a problem. Too much, too little, too late, etc.
(so often a contributory factor in incidents too)

So the question is how to make the work easier and achieve the same or better outcomes.

But 500 calls per shift is an awful number, just awful. Even half that would be awful.

Is there no way that the calls could be replaced with some other system (data interchange or messaging or something)
or handled via a telephone clerk?
 

Garulon

Member
Joined
9 May 2019
Messages
15
Information flow as ever is always a problem. Too much, too little, too late, etc.
(so often a contributory factor in incidents too)

So the question is how to make the work easier and achieve the same or better outcomes.

But 500 calls per shift is an awful number, just awful. Even half that would be awful.

Is there no way that the calls could be replaced with some other system (data interchange or messaging or something)
or handled via a telephone clerk?

Or a chat app. Wow phone calls?

Hope I'm not speaking out of turn but having a resliency plan of "we chuck three people at it and they answer the phone and figure it out on the go" is just terrible terrible management, not least for the poor people chucked in.
 

ComUtoR

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,571
Location
UK
even although more switched-on "upstairs" TOC managers could have achieved an on-time departure.

How do you know the delay wasn't mitigated from a 30L departure to the 15L one ?

There is also a whole plethora of things happening inside the control room and across the network. I've had many phone calls from Signaller/Control where I've had to wind my neck in. Just a quick sample. Signaller: Sorry I wasn't answering, your colleague in front just passed the signal. Control: Sorry, Com (obviously not real name), we were just dealing with the fatality at [redacted], Control: Can I call you back, [name redacted] just dropped a *clanger, and they are just calling in.

There is so much going on across the network, local area, depot, staff member, that often, you just aren't the priority at that moment in time. Sometimes they are trying desperately to organise alternate routes, relief crew, etc. You just need to hold fire before the wrong decision gets made.


*insert proverbial
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
4,899
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
As an ex-Controller myself, now fortunately retired, I can confirm that Controllers, including even me, do indeed sometimes make decisions which in retrospect could have been better, or at times are so utterly overwhelmed that there is no time to even start thinking through any decision. But as a former colleague once told me, it is still better to make a decision, even if it later transpires to have been sub-optimal, than to sit back and do nothing.

1 - there are times the phone rings (or someone comes on the radio) with problem B before you can deal with problem A. Problem B might be more urgent, or it might louse up how you were about to deal with problem A.

A well-made point, and indeed applicable to railway Control offices; On severe weather days for example so many calls are received that it is simply a matter of responding to the most important ones as quickly as possible so that the next important one can be dealt with.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,224
How do you know the delay wasn't mitigated from a 30L departure to the 15L one ?

There is also a whole plethora of things happening inside the control room and across the network. I've had many phone calls from Signaller/Control where I've had to wind my neck in. Just a quick sample. Signaller: Sorry I wasn't answering, your colleague in front just passed the signal. Control: Sorry, Com (obviously not real name), we were just dealing with the fatality at [redacted], Control: Can I call you back, [name redacted] just dropped a *clanger, and they are just calling in.

There is so much going on across the network, local area, depot, staff member, that often, you just aren't the priority at that moment in time. Sometimes they are trying desperately to organise alternate routes, relief crew, etc. You just need to hold fire before the wrong decision gets made.


*insert proverbial
If there's one thing I've learned it's never judge the immediate outcome provided it doesn't affect safety - there's people paid to use 20/20 hindsight to review incidents.

The best thing I can do as an experienced guard is to feed the controller the best information possible from the ground and offer my own input where appropriate, and then stick to the agreed plan and decision. Our control I've generally found are excellent at listening to polite suggestions.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,866
Information flow as ever is always a problem. Too much, too little, too late, etc.
(so often a contributory factor in incidents too)

So the question is how to make the work easier and achieve the same or better outcomes.

But 500 calls per shift is an awful number, just awful. Even half that would be awful.

Is there no way that the calls could be replaced with some other system (data interchange or messaging or something)
or handled via a telephone clerk?
although someone said you cannot have that many, you can in fact have that, and more, however whilst the phone is lit up like a Christmas Tree, you cant get to them all, but it can be a case of going from call to another, at the same time tryng to get information out as well.
 

Undiscovered

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
446
Information flow as ever is always a problem. Too much, too little, too late, etc.
(so often a contributory factor in incidents too)

So the question is how to make the work easier and achieve the same or better outcomes.

But 500 calls per shift is an awful number, just awful. Even half that would be awful.

Is there no way that the calls could be replaced with some other system (data interchange or messaging or something)
or handled via a telephone clerk?
Our TOC has a system that identifies who's calling, head code, unit running and associated staff ie driver and guard, and brings it up on screen. It also allows access to staff diagrams, unit information and diagrams too. All info at their fingertips.
The controller can then decide to answer or ignore, depending on who it is. It also logs when you last called, so two calls in quick succession will flag up, rather than one and then a wait of 10mins before another try.

I know, from being involved in disruption on my train,that my calls have been answered almost instantaneously, and directly addressing me, rather than "hello, control". It allows a degree of prioritising, but isn't always perfect.
And, with regards to a messaging app, we use email for generic things like reporting busy trains, or incidental delays. You can't rely on it for safety critical work as you need the readback and clear understanding aspect. You may also need Special Verbal Authority to skip/extra stop, or terminate short, which is its own protocol.

Some of the best Comms are clear and concise, eg run 1xxx to 'station', as booked. Terminate, replacement busses being sourced onwards to y. You and driver run Empty Coaching Stock to station z, same unit, pick up 2xxx (next booked working) right time to station a. This is a recorded line and I am 'name, position' and you have Special Verbal Authority for these movements. Confirm?

A quick readback, acknowledge and confirm the SVA and on we go. I can do that in a quarter of the time it takes just to type the message out.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
18,766
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
it is still better to make a decision, even if it later transpires to have been sub-optimal, than to sit back and do nothing.

This is so true. Also when a decision has been made, it tends to be better to stick with it rather than keep tinkering. Many non-control staff often don’t quite realise that control need to be able to make a decision, communicate it out and then essentially forget about it and move on to the next problem.
 

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,059
This is so true. Also when a decision has been made, it tends to be better to stick with it rather than keep tinkering. Many non-control staff often don’t quite realise that control need to be able to make a decision, communicate it out and then essentially forget about it and move on to the next problem.
From the interesting feedback it is apparent how much pressure control staff are under in disruption. When there is an option of making a decision quickly, be it optimal or to an extent sub optimal, it will presumably have the potential to alleviate the pressure on "the other side of the coin" i.e. the front line staff endeavouring to assuage the increasingly frustrated flesh and blood passengers/customers in person particularly in situations where the front line staff themselves are in a state of being no better informed than the pax. And yes, I can see that this is a difficult and delicate balancing act.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
18,766
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
From the interesting feedback it is apparent how much pressure control staff are under in disruption. When there is an option of making a decision quickly, be it optimal or to an extent sub optimal, it will presumably have the potential to alleviate the pressure on "the other side of the coin" i.e. the front line staff endeavouring to assuage the increasingly frustrated flesh and blood passengers/customers in person particularly in situations where the front line staff themselves are in a state of being no better informed than the pax. And yes, I can see that this is a difficult and delicate balancing act.

Where I feel things have gone wrong is, notwithstanding the age-old issue that operators don’t appreciate the value in paying for staff who will be twiddling their thumbs at times, staff “on the ground” are nowadays less in number and less knowledgeable than in times past. It has become the case nowadays that station staff in particular often need to be led by the hand, and at times this can apply to some train staff too.

For balance it’s also fair to say that some control staff adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, which can also lead to problems especially when they don’t listen to what they are being told.

Just recently I can think of an incident where “control” needed a sign bagging up, and wanted it done NOW. Despite having been told multiple times that the member of staff first needed to go to the office in order to get something to bag up the sign with. It took something of an argument to get them to realise that it couldn’t be done with thin air!
 

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
1,116
Location
Anglia
Where I feel things have gone wrong is, notwithstanding the age-old issue that operators don’t appreciate the value in paying for staff who will be twiddling their thumbs at times, staff “on the ground” are nowadays less in number and less knowledgeable than in times past. It has become the case nowadays that station staff in particular often need to be led by the hand, and at times this can apply to some train staff too.
It has become apparent that there are so few competent operations staff on the ground compared to in the past. It seems to me that the majority of posts on stations are now value-engineered down to customer service and revenue duties, and the understanding of how operations work is very limited.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,868
Where I feel things have gone wrong is, notwithstanding the age-old issue that operators don’t appreciate the value in paying for staff who will be twiddling their thumbs at times, staff “on the ground” are nowadays less in number and less knowledgeable than in times past. It has become the case nowadays that station staff in particular often need to be led by the hand, and at times this can apply to some train staff too.

For balance it’s also fair to say that some control staff adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, which can also lead to problems especially when they don’t listen to what they are being told.
A difficulty being that, with some staff, twiddling their thumbs starts being seen as their right, and are affronted when they have to step up to the plate at times of stress, negating the expense of having them there in the first place.
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
5,501
Observed yesterday a class one train, already held for five minutes for two other class one trains, being held for four more minutes whilst the signaller allowed a 10 minute early train in. 9 late from origin with (I'm told) "traincrew" being initially attributed as the delay reason despite driver guard and dispatcher all being there. Was the bobby waiting for the cleaning lady?

Frustrating as most working in that busy signalbox do a really good job, but these repeated errors by the minority of individuals and building delay minutes will lead to more ROC-isation - four particular signals associated with that one particular box have some quite shocking compound delay minutes.
 

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,059
A difficulty being that, with some staff, twiddling their thumbs starts being seen as their right, and are affronted when they have to step up to the plate at times of stress, negating the expense of having them there in the first place.
In the worst cases in some stations during periods of thumb twiddling they coalesce into quite a large group of chatting synchronised thumb twiddlers causing pax to feel that they are interrupting if they are seeking assistance. It does seem to point to a lack of effective supervisory control.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,950
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
An incident earlier this week was interesting.

On Tuesday I was on the 17.23 from Waterloo to Exeter. Non-stop to Basingstoke. My destination was Whitchurch. Train was a class 159 plus a class 158. Before we left, the guard apologised that the lighting wasn't working in carriage no. 2. Somewhere before Woking he announced that he'd just been informed that the train would be terminating at Salisbury because of a defect. Passengers would have to wait there for an hour for the next train onwards. I assumed the defect was the lack of lighting in carriage 2. The train was running at line speed and there didn't appear to be any problem with accelerating and keeping moving. I thought passengers would be happy to sit in the dark west of Salisbury, or move into another carriage - where by then there would probably be space - rather than have to wait an hour. It seemed unlikely there was a staffing problem as there were staff already on the train. Surely, I thought, there must be another unit in Salisbury depot that could replace our faulty one.

Near Farnborough the guard announced that another unit had been found and would be waiting at Salisbury to take passengers forward. They would, however, need to change from the train they were in to the new one. There were lots of sighs of relief.

This incident seems to me to illustrate the sort of difficulty that controllers face. Should they have told the guard to announce the termination at Salisbury and the consequent delay, and lead to many passengers phoning their home to ask someone to drive there to pick them up? Or should they have waited till they could advise the guard that an alternative unit had been found? Passengers like to know about a problem as early as possible. Perhaps the best course of action would have been to advise passengers that the train would terminate at Salisbury and that a replacement unit was being sought; and that the guard would advise passengers once it had been arranged, or what to do if one could not be found. But as it was necessary to get arrangements under way for a replacement unit as quickly as possible, and there may have been other issues going on as well, I can understand why the controllers handled it the way they did.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,420
Location
London
Really? There's 480 minutes in 8 hours. Not including mandatory breaks. Nigh on impossible to receive that many phone calls and still function.

Yes, really. Calls just go unanswered and you prioritise (and barely function!).
Information flow as ever is always a problem. Too much, too little, too late, etc.
(so often a contributory factor in incidents too)

So the question is how to make the work easier and achieve the same or better outcomes.

But 500 calls per shift is an awful number, just awful. Even half that would be awful.

Is there no way that the calls could be replaced with some other system (data interchange or messaging or something)
or handled via a telephone clerk?

This sort of thing has been trialled. But normally the "telephone clerk" doesn't have the knowledge, experience or ability to deal with the problem at hand so just becomes a glorified message taker for the controller making the decision in the first place which puts you at square one.
How do you know the delay wasn't mitigated from a 30L departure to the 15L one ?

There is also a whole plethora of things happening inside the control room and across the network. I've had many phone calls from Signaller/Control where I've had to wind my neck in. Just a quick sample. Signaller: Sorry I wasn't answering, your colleague in front just passed the signal. Control: Sorry, Com (obviously not real name), we were just dealing with the fatality at [redacted], Control: Can I call you back, [name redacted] just dropped a *clanger, and they are just calling in.

There is so much going on across the network, local area, depot, staff member, that often, you just aren't the priority at that moment in time. Sometimes they are trying desperately to organise alternate routes, relief crew, etc. You just need to hold fire before the wrong decision gets made.


*insert proverbial

Very true. Whilst the one person making the inbound call might have a legitimate and important query about the next depature from their station, or is a crew member working out if their train is running, there's could be a dozen people wanting the same information or have similar but differing queries/needs.
From the interesting feedback it is apparent how much pressure control staff are under in disruption. When there is an option of making a decision quickly, be it optimal or to an extent sub optimal, it will presumably have the potential to alleviate the pressure on "the other side of the coin" i.e. the front line staff endeavouring to assuage the increasingly frustrated flesh and blood passengers/customers in person particularly in situations where the front line staff themselves are in a state of being no better informed than the pax. And yes, I can see that this is a difficult and delicate balancing act.

Information flows are very important. The controller making the decision isn't always the one actually broadcasting the decision expect to those immediately in the know (normally the driver, and signaller manager/supervisor / train running controller). They are reliant on that information being disemminated via various channels (CIS / secondary phone calls / messaging systems) which all trickle down. It is not something the railway has ever got brilliantly right and only gets harder as the service has intensified over decades. I think it's almost impossible to everything 100% correct, 100% of the time, especially when an incident is in its early stages.

Also nobody has a crystal ball. Doing A, B, C might seem best but give you a new issue at D which was hard to envisage an hour earlier. And sometimes there are sometimes where you only have one or two options given the immediate circumstances and it is known this will cause more problems down the line.
A difficulty being that, with some staff, twiddling their thumbs starts being seen as their right, and are affronted when they have to step up to the plate at times of stress, negating the expense of having them there in the first place.

Depends what the situation is. Sometimes when all trains are at a stand on a significant portion or even all of a controller's route, you just have to wait it out. Sure you can consider plans and alterations (i.e shuttle services) but you don't necessary know when the lines will be reopened.

An incident earlier this week was interesting.

On Tuesday I was on the 17.23 from Waterloo to Exeter. Non-stop to Basingstoke. My destination was Whitchurch. Train was a class 159 plus a class 158. Before we left, the guard apologised that the lighting wasn't working in carriage no. 2. Somewhere before Woking he announced that he'd just been informed that the train would be terminating at Salisbury because of a defect. Passengers would have to wait there for an hour for the next train onwards. I assumed the defect was the lack of lighting in carriage 2. The train was running at line speed and there didn't appear to be any problem with accelerating and keeping moving. I thought passengers would be happy to sit in the dark west of Salisbury, or move into another carriage - where by then there would probably be space - rather than have to wait an hour. It seemed unlikely there was a staffing problem as there were staff already on the train. Surely, I thought, there must be another unit in Salisbury depot that could replace our faulty one.

Near Farnborough the guard announced that another unit had been found and would be waiting at Salisbury to take passengers forward. They would, however, need to change from the train they were in to the new one. There were lots of sighs of relief.

This incident seems to me to illustrate the sort of difficulty that controllers face. Should they have told the guard to announce the termination at Salisbury and the consequent delay, and lead to many passengers phoning their home to ask someone to drive there to pick them up? Or should they have waited till they could advise the guard that an alternative unit had been found? Passengers like to know about a problem as early as possible. Perhaps the best course of action would have been to advise passengers that the train would terminate at Salisbury and that a replacement unit was being sought; and that the guard would advise passengers once it had been arranged, or what to do if one could not be found. But as it was necessary to get arrangements under way for a replacement unit as quickly as possible, and there may have been other issues going on as well, I can understand why the controllers handled it the way they did.

And this is overall a relatively minor incident for a controller to handle - a one-off, termination short of destination. People will endeavour to get things back as booked, but sometimes there are no options, and sometimes the situation unfolds mid-incident (e.g. checking with fleet a unit is available, it is fit for service, a driver can bring it off the depot / swap the unit, identify maintenance requirements end of day etc.) and things take time.

Overall, it would be great to have say double the amount of controllers, but if 90% of the time they are there not doing anything, people will start to question the cost of it all. Bad rail managers often see controllers sitting around chatting and go "Why are we paying all these people so much?!" whereas good rail managers go "ah, railway is running well for our passengers today then!".

It's definitely a hard job, and it is why the roles are generally some of the higher paid in most companies requiring a lot of different skillsets, experiences and knowledge. This is not to say there are not good and bad staff, like you'll see anywhere and one controller dealing with disruption might get a different result to another controller. I guarantee you that things are more complex than they seem - even those who work intensively within the railway don't have a full appreciation of it until they see a control room in full disruption!
 
Last edited:

Surreytraveller

On Moderation
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
2,810
Really? There's 480 minutes in 8 hours. Not including mandatory breaks. Nigh on impossible to receive that many phone calls and still function.
Exactly. That's the point. And what makes you think controllers have breaks?
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
4,899
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
This sort of thing has been trialled. But normally the "telephone clerk" doesn't have the knowledge, experience or ability to deal with the problem at hand so just becomes a glorified message taker for the controller making the decision in the first place which puts you at square one.

Indeed; Bringing in staff from other departments to assist Control at busy times has been tried, however they do not (through no fault of their own) have the necessary, sometimes basic, knowledge, such as how the office phone system works, which Control desk covers which area or function, and signalbox areas, leading to Control staff having more work rather than less!

even those who work intensively within the railway don't have a full appreciation of it until they see a control room in full disruption!

Absolutely!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top