'Due to emergency services dealing with an incident'

[bengley]

Has anybody else noticed that National Rail Enquiries has been advertising one unders as this in recent weeks? It used to be 'due to a person hit by a train.'

Emergency services dealing with an incident could be many things - I can't help but think that this is another dumbing down of information - TfL do it now too, using 'Person on the track' instead of the previous 'Person under a train.'

This is poor information for customers - the customers must just wonder why they don't just tell the person to get off the track and get the trains running again.

 

[rebmcr]

It was also used at Manchester Piccadilly on Sunday after the OHLE thing near Warrington.

 

[thelongestroad]

Depends on the TOC. I know out of the two in my area, one says "Person hit by a train" and the other is "Emergency services dealing with an incident".

I can see the benefits and negatives of using either.

 

[wensley]

The national standard recently changed and requires the use of "Emergency services dealing with an incident." for person hit by train.

There are benefits, but I will personally explain the situation in more detail if the individual circumstances require it.

 

[NSEFAN]

Has anybody else noticed that National Rail Enquiries has been advertising one unders as this in recent weeks? It used to be 'due to a person hit by a train.'

Emergency services dealing with an incident could be many things - I can't help but think that this is another dumbing down of information - TfL do it now too, using 'Person on the track' instead of the previous 'Person under a train.'

This is poor information for customers - the customers must just wonder why they don't just tell the person to get off the track and get the trains running again.

It is done specifically to avoid the talk of suicides, which have sadly become far more common on the railway. My understanding is that repetitive reporting of people being killed by trains leads to others doing the same thing. I don't know for certain if this is the case, or how effective the new wording of these incidents are. I believe other psychological tricks such as yellow boxes at platform ends have worked quite well in preventing people from taking their lives in this manner.

 

[DaleCooper]

Assuming everything is being done to get services up and running again as quickly as possible do passengers really need more detailed information?

 

[bengley]

Assuming everything is being done to get services up and running again as quickly as possible do passengers really need more detailed information?

Yes.

With this new terminology, passengers will be putting staff under extra pressure, asking what the incident involves and how long it's going to take to clear up.

Previously, a person hit by a train meant trains will not be running for the next hour or two.

Emergency services dealing with an incident could mean any of the following to a passenger (list not exhaustive):

Lineside Fire
Ill passenger
Derailment
Tree on the line
Terrorist incident
Stabbing/shooting
Fight
Civil Disorder
Fatality
Flooding
Explosion
Car on the line

Need I go on?

 

[Greenback]

One point of view is that passengers don't need to know the exact details of an incident, it's sufficient for them t know that something has happened and the emergency services are dealing with it.

A different point of view is that knowing the nature of what has happened helped passengers to understand and accept the situation, as well as be able to make an educated guess at how long thing are likely to continue.

I'm in the second group.

 

[DaleCooper]

Yes.

With this new terminology, passengers will be putting staff under extra pressure, asking what the incident involves and how long it's going to take to clear up.

Previously, a person hit by a train meant trains will not be running for the next hour or two.

Emergency services dealing with an incident could mean any of the following to a passenger (list not exhaustive):

Lineside Fire
Ill passenger
Derailment
Tree on the line
Terrorist incident
Stabbing/shooting
Fight
Civil Disorder
Fatality
Flooding
Explosion
Car on the line

Need I go on?

So how is an average passenger to know the length of delay given they are told the cause? They would still need to ask staff for that information.

 

[bengley]

So how is an average passenger to know the length of delay given they are told the cause? They would still need to ask staff for that information.

Regular commuters, at least, would know that 'person hit by train' meant that nothing would be moving for at least an hour - yes, it could vary depending on the severity of the incident but it allowed passengers to make a more educated decision for their revised journey.

Now, let's say the passenger is waiting at Tutbury & Hatton and there are no staff available for information. 'Emergency services dealing with an incident' information is given. Passenger doesn't know what it means and wait on the platform hoping that it's just a person ill on a train, which should mean trains are running again shortly.

Even at stations where staff are available, the staff will inevitably be trying to carry out dispatch duties or other duties which mean they can't answer everyone's questions.

Yes, I appreciate that passengers don't need to know the exact information, but it's better for the regular commuter who can change their journey accordingly.

Also, I tend to find that people give us staff less hassle when it's a fatality - most people have a bit of compassion in those circumstances.

 

[wensley]

So how is an average passenger to know the length of delay given they are told the cause? They would still need to ask staff for that information.

The vast majority of passengers, if told there has been a fatality, will be much more understanding and accepting of the situation and leave the staff concerned to try and recover the service.

I was at York on Saturday after the incident involving 1K22 in The Pennines, the passengers I spoke to were more than happy to wait further information once they knew a little more about the circumstances - which is a great help when you're trying to look after punters, keep track of trains on diversionary routes and keep tabs on Guards, Drivers etc.

At the end of the day it's about finding a balance - 'fatality' or 'person hit by train', if used in the right context during face-to-face conversation trade off giving more information without being too graphic.

Regards the risk of people being more inclined to follow suit if they are told the exact circumstances of the incident , the guidance is not to give too much exact detail on the incident in question (eg. exact location), in the case of Saturday "West of Huddersfield" sufficed.

 

[jon0844]

One of the regular anti-AGA guys on Twitter was really having a go at Abellio recently because there was a report of police dealing with an incident and also that there was a train fault on the same line, at the same time.

It was immediately seen as a conspiracy and Abellio making things up because they were 'totally different things', when chances are it was a person under a train, which was as a result taken out of service. Thus, both reasons were connected and true.

But AGA got accused (with many follow up comments and re-tweets) for just making stuff up, with the implication that they were at fault and just picked a random excuse every time things go wrong.

 

[bengley]

One of the regular anti-AGA guys on Twitter was really having a go at Abellio recently because there was a report of police dealing with an incident and also that there was a train fault on the same line, at the same time.

It was immediately seen as a conspiracy and Abellio making things up because they were 'totally different things', when chances are it was a person under a train, which was as a result taken out of service. Thus, both reasons were connected and true.

But AGA got accused (with many follow up comments and re-tweets) for just making stuff up, with the implication that they were at fault and just picked a random excuse every time things go wrong.

Exactly, but you can almost not blame the passengers (even though I hate the twitter anti-TOC loudmouths) - it sounds like a total shambles.

 

[itsonlyme]

I will apply for compensation for delays if I consider that the delay is the railways fault. An incident to me is not a sufficent explanation for me to attribute fault for this purpose. For a person hit by a train, unless the delay was very excessive, I would not claim. Some years ago on the WCML two trains collided at Winsford. For the following few days the resulting delays/diversions were described as being due to an incident. Now that clearly was the railways fault being due to driver error.

 

[Mojo]

It's a good move but I'm surprised that they still announce the location of an incident though; London Underground stopped this years ago as it was reported to have "encouraged" (for want of a better word) copycat incidents.

 

[bengley]

Somehow I just can't imagine suicidal people scouring the NRE website when they're feeling down

 

[NSEFAN]

Somehow I just can't imagine suicidal people scouring the NRE website when they're feeling down

I would expect the psychological effect is a bit subtler than that...

 

[PHILIPE]

Sometimes you can hear about it through the Media, so what's the point. The media don't "cover" things up if this is the right term to use. A suggestion of "cover up something" does come into the minds of a lot of passengers, many of whom are not daft and would appreciate the cause of the delay far easier if they were given more info without necessarily going into too much detail.

 

[MrPIC]

When I had a fatality a while ago, the only on train announcements I made were that the train had been involved in a serious incident and would only be on the move once the Police and emergency services had given the okay. I would have thought it would have been quite clear what had happened, or at least the seriousness of the "incident" when the BTPolice were walking up and down the train and all around it. Didn't stop some people forcing doors open though! (Police soon sorted those people out though!)
Separately, I remember a while back when there was a derailment in the depot, the reason given on the screens for the delays was "a derailment in the depot", which, in my eyes is a overly specific.

 

[Atishyou]

Yes.

With this new terminology, passengers will be putting staff under extra pressure, asking what the incident involves and how long it's going to take to clear up.

Previously, a person hit by a train meant trains will not be running for the next hour or two.

Emergency services dealing with an incident could mean any of the following to a passenger (list not exhaustive):

Lineside Fire
Ill passenger
Derailment
Tree on the line
Terrorist incident
Stabbing/shooting
Fight
Civil Disorder
Fatality
Flooding
Explosion
Car on the line

Need I go on?

Stop being so dramatic. Emergency services dealing with an incident doesn't cover all those. I've seen NRE use at least half if not three quarters of that list.

It's been changed because there are some sadistic people who turn up to incidents to gawp, take photos and generally cause a menace.

Staff won't be under extra pressure, it's no pressure to answer a question. NRE still provide an estimate where they have one (I.e) where no suspicious circumstances.

 

[bengley]

Stop being so dramatic. Emergency services dealing with an incident doesn't cover all those. I've seen NRE use at least half if not three quarters of that list.

It's been changed because there are some sadistic people who turn up to incidents to gawp, take photos and generally cause a menace.

Staff won't be under extra pressure, it's no pressure to answer a question. NRE still provide an estimate where they have one (I.e) where no suspicious circumstances.

Read what I said.

I said that to a PASSENGER it could mean any of those in the list, because most passengers won't know what is advertised with an accurate reason.

And it is pressured to answer 500 questions from lots of confused passengers constantly without being able to take a breath.

 

[Ediswan]

as well as be able to make an educated guess at how long thing are likely to continue.

+1 to that. There is no "need to know" what the problem is. Getting an idea of how long the delay might be is very useful.

Last time a train I was on came to "random" halt the driver said they could see another train up ahead, and a horse. Shortly after the driver reported that the crew of the train ahead had caught the horse. We were soon on our way.

 

[edwin_m]

Shortly after the driver reported that the crew of the train ahead had caught the horse. We were soon on our way.

You have to wonder what they did with it once they had caught it. It would be a bit big to put on the train...

The other reason passengers appreciate an explanation is that it gives the impression that the operator has a grip of the situation and is also treating the passengers like intelligent human beings (that's two reasons!).

You could say they should just give an estimate of the likely delay and no reason, but all too often that will be unavoidably exceeded and people will think worse of them for it. Whereas if the passengers are told the type of incident and they make their own minds up about what sort of delay is involved, they only have themselves to blame if they turn out to be wrong.

Just to prove it's not just railways, I've been annoyed on two recent flights when there was no boarding as departure time got closer and closer, with most of the passengers standing in a queue. It was only very late, and in once case after boarding, that someone announced that there was a delay on the previous flight. The airline must have known this at least an hour earlier and could have announced a delay and put it on the screens, so passengers knew they could have another coffee or a few more minutes of laptop-balancing. By contrast I was on a flight some years ago when it was announced that takeoff was delayed by about 30min due to a faulty radio. Sure enough at the appointed time a bloke walked up to the flight deck with a bundle of electronics under his arm.

 

[Mag_seven]

Separately, I remember a while back when there was a derailment in the depot, the reason given on the screens for the delays was "a derailment in the depot", which, in my eyes is a overly specific.

I don't see whats wrong with telling it as it is rather than some spurious rubbish like "an operating incident" or "a problem in the depot". There does seem to be a certain "Secret Squirrel" attitude sometimes on the railways.

 

[Carntyne]

It's been done off the back of research. Passengers don't like hearing the real reason. On train staff can still explain what's actually happened when asked.

 

[Expression357]

It certainly has been done on the back of research and quite the debate it caused when that research conclusions were presented - from the TOCs debate centred around the things that have been thought of here (is this less transparent? Will it lead to more customer questions to staff? Will it just become another coded message like Inspector Sands? Etc)

A precise location should no longer be given, instead to report that the emergency services are dealing with an incident between two locations.

For those interested in the research itself, you can find the report at: http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/communicating-suicides-on-the-railway

 

[jon0844]

Given the desire to reduce suicides I'm all for it, as long as there will be a way to get more detailed information if you ask for it.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It certainly has been done on the back of research...

I think research is a bit of a strong word for that document. The industry had a strong desire to change the wording of the message and then asked 46 people in focus groups and the 46 people were hardly representative of the nation as a whole when you consider 22 (nearly half) were ethnic minorities.

 

[SPADTrap]

I think research is a bit of a strong word for that document. The industry had a strong desire to change the wording of the message and then asked 46 people in focus groups and the 46 people were hardly representative of the nation as a whole when you consider 22 (nearly half) were ethnic minorities.

Because the whole nation travel by train and ethnic minorities do not....?

 

[DaleCooper]

I think research is a bit of a strong word for that document. The industry had a strong desire to change the wording of the message and then asked 46 people in focus groups and the 46 people were hardly representative of the nation as a whole when you consider 22 (nearly half) were ethnic minorities.

Persons from ethnic minorities can be (and probably were) British as well.