due to a short notice change to the timetable...

[james_the_xv]

No, it wouldn't. I want to know the reason.

But this goes back to what others have said; I'd bet 90%+ of passengers don't care about the exact reason behind cancellations, in times of disruption they just want to know when they're getting to where they need to be. You're, presumably and enthusiast of some kind, posting on a rail enthusiasts forum. That kind of information is interesting to us, but not required to answer the more important question in this scenario that is which is the next train I can get to my destination.

As much as I'm sure some would love announcements going into the finite details, a bigger picture approach is necessary and 'due to a short notice change in the timetable' is adequate for informing the public of disruption.

 

[Horizon22]

Ha ha. Tfl have been using "Minor/severe delays due to train cancellations" for months on end.

Whilst appearing non-sensical and I agree a better reason could be used, it does make a little bit of sense; TfL delays status generally run on gaps in service, so having cancelled trains, increases the gaps. But it be better to say why the trains are cancelled in the first place!

 

[TUC]

What difference would it make? The train would still be cancelled and passengers would have to make alternative plans to get from a to b. The more informed opinion on here would state that the root cause is " the government's lack of ambition and vision for the railway" which wouldn't sound particularly good over a station PA system

That's called passing the buck with a lazy excuse.

It's all got a bit silly, disruption that makes the press always has some one trotting out the line 'no information' when there is an abundance of information available i.e. your train is delayed/cancelled. I accept that doesn't help you get home but no one considers there might not be the knowledge anywhere as to when the trains will be up and running. I work in IT and the number of times I've answered ’when is it going to be fixed' with 5 minutes after I find what's broken.

To avoid the accusations of TOCs not giving information, these nonsense statements come out, i.e. the service is cancelled due to the service not running, roughly translated it means we've cancelled the service but don't really want to announce the reason why as we haven't got train crew or a train to operate it due to a cock up.

So just be honest about that. Treat customers decently. That's a key measure of whether any business is one worth dealing with.

 

[Parjon]

But this goes back to what others have said; I'd bet 90%+ of passengers don't care about the exact reason behind cancellations, in times of disruption they just want to know when they're getting to where they need to be. You're, presumably and enthusiast of some kind, posting on a rail enthusiasts forum. That kind of information is interesting to us, but not required to answer the more important question in this scenario that is which is the next train I can get to my destination.

As much as I'm sure some would love announcements going into the finite details, a bigger picture approach is necessary and 'due to a short notice change in the timetable' is adequate for informing the public of disruption.

Pretty insulting assumptions. I'm someone who commutes, who doesn't appreciate the insult of being at a train station and being told that my train has been cancelled, and being given no reason as to why.

 

[james_the_xv]

Pretty insulting assumptions. I'm someone who commutes,

A fair assumption though, given you have nearly 500 posts on a railway enthusiast forum.

who doesn't appreciate the insult of being at a train station and being told that my train has been cancelled, and being given no reason as to why.

You have been given a reason. If that reason is valid is up to interpretation. I'm sure many commuters, like yourself, wouldn't see 'leaves on the line' or 'overrunning engineering work' as valid reasons for disruption and cancellations, but they are reasons nevertheless.

 

[Parjon]

A fair assumption though, given you have nearly 500 posts on a railway enthusiast forum.


You have been given a reason. If that reason is valid is up to interpretation. I'm sure many commuters, like yourself, wouldn't see 'leaves on the line' or 'overrunning engineering work' as valid reasons for disruption and cancellations, but they are reasons nevertheless.

A train being cancelled because it is cancelled isn't a reason. Whether you like it or not.

What I found insulting was the assumption that one would have to be an enthusiast to want an explanation, as if it's some kind of anorak interest driving the desire for one. Rather than common courtesy and a desire not to be insulted.

As per my original post, in fact.

 

[jdp30]

You have been given a reason. If that reason is valid is up to interpretation. I'm sure many commuters, like yourself, wouldn't see 'leaves on the line' or 'overrunning engineering work' as valid reasons for disruption and cancellations, but they are reasons nevertheless.

At least leaves on the line or engineering works are a root cause - If you hear "short notice change to the timetable", it just leaves you with the next question of "Why was it changed?".

 

[AngusH]

I'd bet 90%+ of passengers don't care about the exact reason behind cancellations, in times of disruption they just want to know when they're getting to where they need to be.

maybe? but most regular travellers i've known had a good idea of which types of problem occured and the likely impact.
"oh thats its for the day then, lets switch to the bus." or "lets sit around a bit and take the train in an hour" . Although they mostly weren't rail enthusiasts, they'd usually have a pretty accurate idea in an instant.

This made their travel more efficient so they spent time building up standard responses to common problems.

if no reason is given then this breaks down.

 

[Horizon22]

But this goes back to what others have said; I'd bet 90%+ of passengers don't care about the exact reason behind cancellations

You bet wrong. Previous research by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) has suggested many do want to know the reason. I can't remember if it was a majority or not, but it was much larger than 10%.

Otherwise there wouldn't be reason codes to use in the first place.

 

[james_the_xv]

A train being cancelled because it is cancelled isn't a reason. Whether you like it or not.

No, the train has been cancelled due to a short notice change to the timetable. The reasoning behind that could be anything, the fact is it doesn't matter to a certain extent why an individual train has been cancelled, the information passengers want to know is 'when is my next train to my destination'. Why spend time explaining issues such as depot issues, driver shortage, when the top line is 'train is cancelled, short notice change to tt for operational reasons'. I'm not claiming it's a perfect announcement, just that it is adequate for it's intended use.

What I found insulting was the assumption that one would have to be an enthusiast to want an explanation, as if it's some kind of anorak interest driving the desire for one. Rather than common courtesy and a desire not to be insulted.

You have been given an explanation though, something has happened that has necessitated a short term change in the timetable. There may not be a reason code for it, or a programmable announcement, but the announcement is adequate for many others who are traveling to remind them check the day's timetable for any updates. I would advise against getting insulted by a cancellation announcement though, can't be good for the old health.

maybe? but most regular travellers i've known had a good idea of which types of problem occured and the likely impact.
"oh thats its for the day then, lets switch to the bus." or "lets sit around a bit and take the train in an hour" . Although they mostly weren't rail enthusiasts, they'd usually have a pretty accurate idea in an instant.

This made their travel more efficient so they spent time building up standard responses to common problems.

if no reason is given then this breaks down.

The announcement should prompt people to check apps/departure boards and make that call for themselves. I'd imagine if there was a more suitable reason available in the system, they'd use it.

At least leaves on the line or engineering works are a root cause - If you hear "short notice change to the timetable", it just leaves you with the next question of "Why was it changed?".

Which goes back to 'does it matter?'. I can almost guarantee your next question is 'when is the next available train' which is more important than why the cancellation occurred IMO.

You bet wrong. Previous research by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) has suggested many do want to know the reason. I can't remember if it was a majority or not, but it was much larger than 10%.

Otherwise there wouldn't be reason codes to use in the first place.

Are we talking 'a' reason, or 'the' reason. Just showing a train as cancelled does spark questions, but a short notice change to the timetable is 'a' reason, and as I've said before the more important bit of information at that time is 'when is my next train'.

My understanding of reason codes is they are primarily used in the delay attribution process (hence why there's a lot of them, and some rarely used) and integration into PIS was a secondary benefit for what they were designed for, but happy to be corrected on that.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

You bet wrong. Previous research by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) has suggested many do want to know the reason. I can't remember if it was a majority or not, but it was much larger than 10%.

Otherwise there wouldn't be reason codes to use in the first place.

Indeed. Somewhat anecdoatal and a small sample size, I realise, but a couple of years back I attended a customer focus group run by Network Rail on the subject of disruption, and every person in that room wanted clear, unambiguous reasons for delays as part of announcements and displays. Now, granted, the majority/all of the people in the room were seasoned commuters but to a man, they all felt that knowing clear reasons for disruption helped them to make informed decisions about alternatives.

At that time, the delay "reason" that was disliked the most was the dreaded "operational reasons".

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Indeed. Somewhat anecdoatal and a small sample size, I realise, but a couple of years back I attended a customer focus group run by Network Rail on the subject of disruption, and every person in that room wanted clear, unambiguous reasons for delays as part of announcements and displays. Now, granted, the majority/all of the people in the room were seasoned commuters but to a man, they all felt that knowing clear reasons for disruption helped them to make informed decisions about alternatives.

At that time, the delay "reason" that was disliked the most was the dreaded "operational reasons".

It all goes back to genuinely what information is available to be announced, this singular train has been canceled due to operational reasons (i.e no train or crew - does the average passenger need to which it is) is different to the line is blocked for several hours.

The issue generally is that as soon as it is announced the line is closed, it opens up a number of questions that are unknown to anyone at that time, how long - don't know until the police/engineer/ whoever is on site, what's the alternative - don't know until it's arranged taxi/coach. Then the challenge comes back no information, that's because there isn't any to give.

To avoid opinions being given out as facts, the TOCs have a number of pre-defined cancellation reasons to fit into I would assume, this also means that the platform staff can interpret correctly what's happening. The draw back of this is that the reasons given are fairly generic and don't actually tell the average passenger what's going on.

 

[Pete 1981]

The timetable has changed because there's no staff or unit in position to operate the service.

 

[Bow Fell]

I don’t like the use of the reason and root cause should always be selected through Tyrell where possible.

However, you have the May 2018 TT disaster to partly thank for this.

There’s at least 2 or 3 TOC’s I know of that if there is part of a unit diagram that has no traincrew the whole unit diagram is removed, rather than cancelling the traincrew diagram because it would see units stranded and platforms blocked which NR were not happy about. You had traincrew turning for trains but no unit and its being announced as a shortage of traincrew even though the crew are there!

For example:

Unit A comes off the depot at 0530 and runs ECS to Station A and is worked by Driver 101 and Guard 101 until 0930 between Station A and B, where they are due PNB at station B

Theres no crew for this so those services are cancelled.

Now Driver 102 and Guard 102 at a different depot which is located at Station B work it from 0945-1345 but theres no unit as the unit still on the depot near Station A.

Theres crew for this but no unit available so services remain cancelled.

So while the root cause is there was no crew, it’s a half truth as there’s traincrew but now no unit. And this is why “short-notice change to the timetable” has been used.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don’t like the use of the reason and root cause should always be selected through Tyrell where possible.

However, you have the May 2018 TT disaster to partly thank for this.

There’s at least 2 or 3 TOC’s I know of that if there is part of a unit diagram that has no traincrew the whole unit diagram is removed, rather than cancelling the traincrew diagram because it would see units stranded and platforms blocked which NR were not happy about. You had traincrew turning for trains but no unit and its being announced as a shortage of traincrew even though the crew are there!

For example:

Unit A comes off the depot at 0530 and runs ECS to Station A and is worked by Driver 101 and Guard 101 until 0930 between Station A and B, where they are due PNB at station B

Theres no crew for this so those services are cancelled.

Now Driver 102 and Guard 102 at a different depot which is located at Station B work it from 0945-1345 but theres no unit as the unit still on the depot near Station A.

Theres crew for this but no unit available so services remain cancelled.

So while the root cause is there was no crew, it’s a half truth as there’s traincrew but now no unit. And this is why “short-notice change to the timetable” has been used.

Isn't there a code for something like "train crew being unavailable earlier"? Surely that should be used for the sections where there is a crew but no unit. The train is cancelled because the crew who were supposed to get the unit to the right place were unavailable [and so the unit is stuck at the depot].

For the sections of the diagram which actually have no crew available they should obviously just say that (use "a member of train crew being unavailable" or similar).

 

[jawr256]

You have been given a reason. If that reason is valid is up to interpretation. I'm sure many commuters, like yourself, wouldn't see 'leaves on the line' or 'overrunning engineering work' as valid reasons for disruption and cancellations, but they are reasons nevertheless.

I agree that 'leaves on the line' or 'overrunning engineering work' are reasons for disruption and cancellations. But I don't believe 'a short notice change to the timetable' can be defined as a reason for a cancellation in most cases, because it generally appears to directly describe the act of cancelling the train, rather than a related event. This is why others have equated it to 'this train is cancelled because it's been cancelled', which would be worse than not giving a reason.

 

[trainophile]

It would help a little if such announcements were followed immediately by what the disrupted passenger’s options now are.

All very well saying “you may be entitled to some compensation” (that “may” be annoys me too), but currently the general outcome is a trainload of people milling around the station trying to find someone who can advise them. It all adds to the impression that nobody has a clue what’s going on.

 

[Moonshot]

Avanti appear to have been able to recruit & train sufficient staff in a relatively short period in order to run a reasonably reliable service so is it Governments fault that Northern & TPE haven’t ?

The well informed opinion would know that at a very recent transport select committee session , both the TPE and Northern MDs both stated they had sufficient drivers to run the timetable. That concurs with my own experience.....we have enough drivers. However in the case of TPE , there was a significant backlog of training..

 

[londonmidland]

TPE are still using this excuse for daily and have been doing so for the last year or so.

 

[Horizon22]

My understanding of reason codes is they are primarily used in the delay attribution process (hence why there's a lot of them, and some rarely used) and integration into PIS was a secondary benefit for what they were designed for, but happy to be corrected on that.

There are some similarities and overlap but ultimately no, the delay reason used on the CIS is not the same as formal delay attribution which has a number of formal codes and dispute / acceptance / escalation processes within the industry.

Multiple CIS reasons are available for what might be consider one code under delay attribution, whilst a CIS message might be relevant to passengers or rather vague (e.g. “congestion” or “operational incident”) and delay attribution would be totally detached from that and look at root cause.

 

[Megafuss]

The timetable has changed because there's no staff or unit in position to operate the service.

LNER often turn trains at Newcastle when the line north to Edinburgh is closed at short notice. Maybe they should just tell customers at Morpeth or Alnmouth there has been a short notice change to the timetable and not say why.....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But this goes back to what others have said; I'd bet 90%+ of passengers don't care about the exact reason behind cancellations, in times of disruption they just want to know when they're getting to where they need to be.

Yes, most people do want to know how they can complete their journeys. But I think the issue is that most people (and I'm talking general public here, not rail enthusiasts) also want to feel that they are being cared about, being given honest information, and that even if the trains are disrupted, the rail staff and companies are concerned and are doing what they can to facilitate their journeys. Announcing a 'reason' for the disruption that amounts to meaningless verbiage will to most people communicate a subtext of 'we're trying to hide something' and 'we don't really care about you or your journey', which then makes the disruption doubly annoying. An announcement that gives a meaningful genuine reason why it was not possible to run the train communicates honesty and a degree of caring - even if in practical terms it makes no difference to the passenger's ability to complete their journey.

 

[trainophile]

Yes, most people do want to know how they can complete their journeys. But I think the issue is that most people (and I'm talking general public here, not rail enthusiasts) also want to feel that they are being cared about, being given honest information, and that even if the trains are disrupted, the rail staff and companies are concerned and are doing what they can to facilitate their journeys. Announcing a 'reason' for the disruption that amounts to meaningless verbiage will to most people communicate a subtext of 'we're trying to hide something' and 'we don't really care about you or your journey', which then makes the disruption doubly annoying. An announcement that gives a meaningful genuine reason why it was not possible to run the train communicates honesty and a degree of caring - even if in practical terms it makes no difference to the passenger's ability to complete their journey.

Spot on. It implies "there is a reason but you're not important enough to know what it is".

Especially when a dozen or more trains in one day get the same cop-out on Journey Check. Come on, stop messing with the timetables and just run the trains.

 

[Purple Train]

Yes, most people do want to know how they can complete their journeys. But I think the issue is that most people (and I'm talking general public here, not rail enthusiasts) also want to feel that they are being cared about, being given honest information, and that even if the trains are disrupted, the rail staff and companies are concerned and are doing what they can to facilitate their journeys. Announcing a 'reason' for the disruption that amounts to meaningless verbiage will to most people communicate a subtext of 'we're trying to hide something' and 'we don't really care about you or your journey', which then makes the disruption doubly annoying. An announcement that gives a meaningful genuine reason why it was not possible to run the train communicates honesty and a degree of caring - even if in practical terms it makes no difference to the passenger's ability to complete their journey.

Indeed. It's a fancy way of saying "this train is cancelled due to a cancellation". Because, fundamentally, that is the definition of a cancellation.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The well informed opinion would know that at a very recent transport select committee session , both the TPE and Northern MDs both stated they had sufficient drivers to run the timetable. That concurs with my own experience.....we have enough drivers. However in the case of TPE , there was a significant backlog of training..

Significant drivers maybe for the timetable in Mon to Fri peaks, but relying on overtime at other times makes this difficult.

 

[LRV3004]

Going slightly off tangent here but I heard an amusing one at Crewe the other night saying a train was delayed "due to the train making extra stops because a service was cancelled". Ordinarily I'd get this; a stop order being put on, however the train in question this particular evening was the Crewe to Chester shuttle service.......

 

[Kite159]

Going slightly off tangent here but I heard an amusing one at Crewe the other night saying a train was delayed "due to the train making extra stops because a service was cancelled". Ordinarily I'd get this; a stop order being put on, however the train in question this particular evening was the Crewe to Chester shuttle service.......

Might that one have been to the inbound to Chester being delayed as from memory the evening shuttles interwork a bit more.
(Ie a Holyhead - Cardiff comes in from Holyhead to split with the front unit forming a Crewe train which goes back to Chester as the next shuttle)

 

[LRV3004]

Might that one have been to the inbound to Chester being delayed as from memory the evening shuttles interwork a bit more.
(Ie a Holyhead - Cardiff comes in from Holyhead to split with the front unit forming a Crewe train which goes back to Chester as the next shuttle)

That makes sense! Certainly had me scratching my head at the time though!!!

 

[sheff1]

A fair assumption though, given you have nearly 500 posts on a railway enthusiast forum.

Who says this is a railway enthusiast forum ? Posters who travel a lot by train and/or take a close interest in legal matters pertaining to such travel are not necessarily 'railway enthusiasts'.

TPE are still using this excuse for daily and have been doing so for the last year or so.

indeed, so hardly a short notice change.

 

[renegademaster]

Is it stating the obvious that TPE and Northern don’t serve the sanctified London environs, whereas the north of the country is not considered to be of any importance?

Londoners wouldn’t accept such a weak, baffling and meaningless excuse, hence it not being given for Avanti cancellations.

We just get "Cancelled due to a shortage of staff " on every other thameslink.
Southern is fairly reliable now but only because they cut half their services