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

[Route115?]

Looking at it from the other end, train up more controllers and have them doing other jobs such as timetabling, delay analysis, etc when things are running smoothly. There would be a cost but it might be worth it.

 

[Gaelan]

For anyone interested in how control looks in practice, there's an online live stream of TriMet's (the agency responsible for trams and busses in Portland, OR, USA) radio channels: http://www.rosecitytransit.org/radio/

In once listened to them, in response to an object stuck in the tram OLE, pull several busses (presumably from frequency-based services where a missed trip isn't horrible) to operate as replacement services, all for a disruption lasting maybe an hour or two - seems like quite a well-run operation.

 

[Horizon22]

Absolutely!

Particularly interesting when you have ‘critics’ come visit (normally a gripe about communications) and they go “oh, I never knew”.

Not to say things can’t be continuously improved, but it’s been going on for long enough across multiple companies, routes and decades that if there was an easy (and cheap!) fix it would have been done.

 

[6Gman]

Yes, really. Calls just go unanswered and you prioritise (and barely function!).

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.

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.

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.

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.



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!

I never worked in Control but I was a regular unwelcome visitor bringing a list of short-notice freight alterations for them to arrange!

Very quickly learnt not to hang around during disruption.

Also learnt there were two types of controllers - the yelling and swearing type and the preternaturally calm ones, with nothing inbetween!

 

[Urban Gateline]

Until you spend at least a shift during disruption in a control room you really have no clue! I've seen both sides of it, as station staff we used to moan about Control and poor decisions, but then having spent a month as an Info controller sitting next to the Train Service Managers (controllers) I soon saw how hectic it gets during disruption, as others have said the controllers are trying to make decisions whilst being bombarded with phone calls from crew, station staff and also having to liaise with the signaller, network rail incident staff and other control room staff like Info controllers to get the correct information out to staff on the ground.

Usually there is one controller for a specific patch of their TOC network, during disruption controllers not affected do try to help the one(s) most affected. Toughest on weekends when some TOC's only run with half the number of controllers covering larger areas so they get absolutely snowed under during disruption. I left and went on to become a Guard, much less hassle albeit lower pay, but yes it's not a job for the faint hearted to be a TOC Controller!

 

[Somewhere]

Looking at it from the other end, train up more controllers and have them doing other jobs such as timetabling, delay analysis, etc when things are running smoothly. There would be a cost but it might be worth it.

They could rotate. Delay clerks are forever asking Controllers why this, that, or the other happened, when to a Controller who wasn't on duty its obvious.
They'd have to up the salaries, but to rotate between Controllers and other related jobs seems a good idea

Over the years, there's been a de-skilling and cutting-down numbers of front-line staff.
Years ago, there would be Station Supervisors, Train Crew Supervisors and Conductors, all with operational knowledge and training.
Now there's one Train Crew Supervisor for the whole of Thameslink (for example) with no conductors on the trains. Station staff who no longer hold competencies to dispatch trains.
And train crew diagrams where drivers change trains here, there and everywhere.
Its no wonder it all falls to bits all the time, with one controller trying to keep up

 

[Horizon22]

They could rotate. Delay clerks are forever asking Controllers why this, that, or the other happened, when to a Controller who wasn't on duty its obvious.
They'd have to up the salaries, but to rotate between Controllers and other related jobs seems a good idea

Over the years, there's been a de-skilling and cutting-down numbers of front-line staff.
Years ago, there would be Station Supervisors, Train Crew Supervisors and Conductors, all with operational knowledge and training.
Now there's one Train Crew Supervisor for the whole of Thameslink (for example) with no conductors on the trains. Station staff who no longer hold competencies to dispatch trains.
And train crew diagrams where drivers change trains here, there and everywhere.
Its no wonder it all falls to bits all the time, with one controller trying to keep up

I think you’ll find it’s not unique to just control or delay attribution (or indeed the railway!) about people not understanding why another role does something the way they do at first.

As for Thameslink, it somewhat makes sense they’ve cut down on a crew supervisor role without guards, although I can tell you there’s not just one. Otherwise yes, de-skilling of station staff does have pitfalls, especially when trying to ascertain and pass on specific operational information.