FGW delay: "Never apologise, never explain"

[dcsprior]

While more information may help in situations like this, I think that the real fix for the problem here would be to set a maximum time (probably around 30 mins) that passengers should be left on a failed train without either a locomotive being sent to pull it to a station, or send an empty train alongside for them to transfer to - with fines for TOCs who don't rescue passengers in time.

 

[A-driver]

Things that do annoy me are indeed reasons like "this is due to emergency services dealing with an incident", "a problem under investigation", or, as I have heard more than once, "an incident". Likewise "congestion".

All of these sound vague and fob the passengers off. After a set period of time, Control should be able to advise a suitable but believable and honest version of events to be relayed. Passengers would rather hear about "a person on the line has been injured by a train", "there is a fire involving a cable", "an investigation into the procedure used when the previous train was dispatched", "a queue of trains because of a signal's component failing", "a brake which can't be released", or whatever.

And if it's not known? Announce it - as discussed above. Phrase it differently. Say that "a more senior manager is trying to find the problem with the train's systems", or "the engineer on the track will be running through their troubleshooting checks as I speak".

None of these breach confidentiality relating to any specific person, or allege any wrongdoing, and don't involve timeframes.

Funnily enough, when things go wrong controls priority is to recover the service, they are swamped by phone calls from signallers, network rail, staff, drivers etc trying to find out what's going on, trying to work out the best way to get stranded passengers off trains without disrupting other services more than they need to, trying to get trains and crews into workable positions etc.

Updating the website with a running commentary of what's happening isn't really up there as a priority. They will do there best to get some sort of time estimate but they arnt fobbing you off, just putting up a reason and then trying to recover service.

Most people don't care what's causing the delay, they just want to know how late they will be.

 

[PHILIPE]

While more information may help in situations like this, I think that the real fix for the problem here would be to set a maximum time (probably around 30 mins) that passengers should be left on a failed train without either a locomotive being sent to pull it to a station, or send an empty train alongside for them to transfer to - with fines for TOCs who don't rescue passengers in time.

You don't have spare locos/units/drivers just hanging about doing nothing. Assistance is usually arranged when the full facts of the failure are assistance is available. You can't put a time limit on it - just ASAP

 

[A-driver]

While more information may help in situations like this, I think that the real fix for the problem here would be to set a maximum time (probably around 30 mins) that passengers should be left on a failed train without either a locomotive being sent to pull it to a station, or send an empty train alongside for them to transfer to - with fines for TOCs who don't rescue passengers in time.

You are ignoring many if the other posts on here. In an ideal world that works.

Trust me, all TOCs will try pulling/ pushing a failed train out the way ASAP. But its not that simple. Some faults will transfer to a rescue unit and cause that to fail to. You can't just push or pull a train either-if the brakes are locked on then they need to be wound off by a fitter or else the brakes will get very hot and the train will start smouldering!

As for a loco being sent, where does this come from? If a train is failed with trains around it you need to get the rescue loco around all the other trains, they can't just weave it around other traffic like on the roads. And then you need to find a spare loco in the first place. And find a spare driver. And sort out a compatible coupler, staff to fit the coupler etc.

As said previously, leaving people in the train is often the least disruptive. Ok the 500 people in that train don't see it that way but the thousands if others going past on the other lines are better off rather than suspending all trains for an hour whilst you walk 500 people up the track or onto another train leaving everyone else without any service.

And 30 mins is no time at all on the railways. In a serious fault they may have declared the train a Failiure within 10 mins but organising any kind of rescue or further assistance will take far more than 30mins. As I say, its not like getting an AA van to weave through the traffic and give the broken down car blocking a lane of the M1 a push into the hard shoulder.

 

[tsr]

Funnily enough, when things go wrong controls priority is to recover the service, they are swamped by phone calls from signallers, network rail, staff, drivers etc trying to find out what's going on, trying to work out the best way to get stranded passengers off trains without disrupting other services more than they need to, trying to get trains and crews into workable positions etc.

Updating the website with a running commentary of what's happening isn't really up there as a priority. They will do there best to get some sort of time estimate but they arnt fobbing you off, just putting up a reason and then trying to recover service.

Most people don't care what's causing the delay, they just want to know how late they will be.

I am not just talking about "the website". These reasons are given out via all forms of media - websites, yes, but also over the phone, help points, Twitter - and on CIS and train/station PAs. You'd think that the people (including guards and drivers) updating these various systems must have a very slight clue about what the issue is, even if they haven't got the train's technical documents to hand and don't have qualifications to work as skilled fitters/medics/signallers/whatever else. They will not be sitting there for a couple of hours with the only information being that a "problem is under investigation". All these methods need central control as they are crucial sources for all sorts of people. If it isn't a priority to provide information to customers who pay and enter into a contract for their transport, don't bother doing it!

Passengers definitely do care about what's delaying them - if you tell a passenger moaning about "another supposed train fault" that the brakes have jammed on and the train is stuck in a tunnel, I know from experience that they will generally say "Oh, that's quite a bad problem, I guess we'll just have to wait" - if, however, you say that the train is faulty, they'll think it's like when their car takes a few goes to start up on a cold morning and that the train company staff are just being a bit silly. Likewise, if you say that an injured person is being treated on the line, they can empathise a bit more, and often will. Hence why people moan about "another person being hit by a train" on Twitter, but then apologising once it is pointed out that the person is sadly deceased. The first question is very often "What am I going to tell the boss/my wife/my kids/my dentist/my interviewer?" - rather than "How long am I going to be?"

 

[A-driver]

I am not just talking about "the website". These reasons are given out via all forms of media - websites, yes, but also over the phone, help points, Twitter - and on CIS and train/station PAs. You'd think that the people (including guards and drivers) updating these various systems must have a very slight clue about what the issue is, even if they haven't got the train's technical documents to hand and don't have qualifications to work as skilled fitters/medics/signallers/whatever else. They will not be sitting there for a couple of hours with the only information being that a "problem is under investigation". All these methods need central control as they are crucial sources for all sorts of people. If it isn't a priority to provide information to customers who pay and enter into a contract for their transport, don't bother doing it!

Passengers definitely do care about what's delaying them - if you tell a passenger moaning about "another supposed train fault" that the brakes have jammed on and the train is stuck in a tunnel, I know from experience that they will generally say "Oh, that's quite a bad problem, I guess we'll just have to wait" - if, however, you say that the train is faulty, they'll think it's like when their car takes a few goes to start up on a cold morning and that the train company staff are just being a bit silly. Likewise, if you say that an injured person is being treated on the line, they can empathise a bit more, and often will. Hence why people moan about "another person being hit by a train" on Twitter, but then apologising once it is pointed out that the person is sadly deceased. The first question is very often "What am I going to tell the boss/my wife/my kids/my dentist/my interviewer?" - rather than "How long am I going to be?"

I disagree and so does the research the industry conducted into this.

The exact details arnt relevant to the majority. 'A train fault' is more than enough info.

Plus, to be fair, excuses like 'a problem under investigation' are updated once more info is known.

The excuse 'congestion' which you mentioned is exactly what it says. Congestion happens on the railway and there is often no other reason for it. In the peaks stretches if track are used way over capacity and so ques of trains are inevitable. Add to that increased dwell times at busy stations and all it takes is someone holding the doors open, a dodgy traction motor reducing acceleration, slightly poor rail conditions etc and trains will slowly loose some time and it quickly knocks on to others causing congestion. Often there is no specific reason for congestion-somewhere like London bridge is just a very congested area and traffic jams do form.

Then you have vague excuses like 'an operating incident'. This can often be quite a complicated reason and contrary to popular belief dosnt just mean the driver has had a spad etc. And until most operating incidents are fully investigated (can take days/weeks) they can't go saying too much.

 

[SPADTrap]

Passengers definitely do care about what's delaying them - if you tell a passenger moaning about "another supposed train fault" that the brakes have jammed on and the train is stuck in a tunnel, I know from experience that they will generally say "Oh, that's quite a bad problem, I guess we'll just have to wait" - if, however, you say that the train is faulty, they'll think it's like when their car takes a few goes to start up on a cold morning and that the train company staff are just being a bit silly. Likewise, if you say that an injured person is being treated on the line, they can empathise a bit more, and often will. Hence why people moan about "another person being hit by a train" on Twitter, but then apologising once it is pointed out that the person is sadly deceased. The first question is very often "What am I going to tell the boss/my wife/my kids/my dentist/my interviewer?" - rather than "How long am I going to be?"

Not even commuters are stupid enough to think that TOCs delay trains to be 'silly', do they?! If so it probably isn't worth entertaining them with a in depth 'sit-rep'?

 

[Goatboy]

It does. If there is a fault they will go through the motions of diagnosing it. If its not a common problem then it will certainly take time to diagnose and fix.

I have known one particular train to sit in the middle if nowhere for 4 hours with 2 fitters, a RSI, a driver and driver manager pulling it apart before they found out what the problem was.

True but in that example the problem was a train fault - so somebody did know!

 

[BestWestern]

Explanations for service disruption are kept as short and simple as is reasonably possible as people will otherwise tend not to understand it. People do not take well to jargon and over-complicated announcements, and indeed they will often complain about such things confusing them. If a train has failed, it has failed. That is all that passengers need to know, they don't need to be informed that 43125 on the trailing end of 1C24 has suffered a seized axle and the traincrew are currently carrying out a rotational test.... Would 1,500 p*ssed off commuters at Paddington really appreciate that?!

Some of the more 'vague' reasons for disruption, in particular the one about "a problem under investigation", are sometimes necessary because at that particular moment the full details of the incident aren't actually known. We get that very same explanation on internal messages too, it isn't used simply to 'fob off' passengers. In some instances it can suggest that somebody has cocked something up somewhere. In such cases it is unwise for a public announcement to be made to the effect that a member of the railway's operational staff has buggered it up, as it does little to foster public confidence in the trains they will shortly be travelling on; "Ladies and Gentlemen we apologise for the delay, this is due to the previous train having passed a signal at danger..." - not terribly appropriate.

As for the article, if indeed there were no announcements by the Guard then that is very poor, although it is possible on an HST that he or she may have been assisting the Driver; in any case though I would expect something to have been said to the passengers. But, as we've already heard, there is always the possibility that it's just bullsh*t.

 

[Flamingo]

The article that started this is an ill-informed rant by somebody who is using his audience and abusing his position to vent his personal spleen at his life not running to plan.

Regarding the other issues raised (which are valid), A Driver and other posters have answered them pretty comprehensively.

All I can say is how I deal with these situations - I make initial announcements giving as much information as I can, and then keep walking up and down the train, letting everybody admire the uniform, making a show of checking my pager in every carriage, and telling everybody "I'm coming through to answer questions, but to save endlessly repeating myself, any question beginning "What time?" or "How Long?", the answer is I don't know". I'll offer free tea & coffee.

However, I'm afraid I don't pander to people who want to have a rant at me - everybody else on the damn train is delayed, including me, no one person is any more special than anybody else, and I will tell people to sit down and shut up - mainly because moods are transmitted, and a mob mentality can take hold very easily if it is allowed to.

 

[Shaggy]

From reading the article it's obvious there's a discrepancy between what a TOC can provide during periods of disruption and what a passenger can expect.



In BR days the foreman at Old Oak Common would have been informed about a broken down train on the down fast, and a driver on a 'spare' turn would have been told to drive a 47 to the stricken HST, use the emergency towbar to couple onto the HST, and then haul the train to either its destination or a station where the train could be terminated.

Unfortunately, today that doesn't seem to be possible. I can imagine using a 57 stabled at OOC (or what remains of it) to haul the HST was discussed but I doubt there were any drivers trained on 57s at the depot that evening.

Back in BR days it was all so simple wasn't it.

No such thing as a 'spare' turn anymore, certainly no one who could possibly sign 57s. Certainly no-one bothers to rescue failed trains.

Yes, if only we could go back to BR days then everything would be great.

 

[michael769]

You don't have spare locos/units/drivers just hanging about doing nothing.

And why is that? It's because the ToCs don't want to invest in equipping themselves so they can provide an adequate servixe.

All too often we hear that things are outwith ToCs control. When truth is that they are not willing to invest in soing better,

 

[Shaggy]

And why is that? It's because the ToCs don't want to invest in equipping themselves so they can provide an adequate servixe.

All too often we hear that things are outwith ToCs control. When truth is that they are not willing to invest in soing better,

Erm, this is a false statement.

I can assure you FGW do have drivers and guards on standby/as required turns.

 

[martybabes]

and I will tell people to sit down and shut up

Now that's customer service for you!

 

[A-driver]

Now that's customer service for you!

No, that's crowd control when you have a group of commuters threatening to turn a situation from being 1 failed train with 500 trapped passengers to being all trains stopped, trespassers all over the line and many thousands of trapped passengers. Its what the police, fire service, army & cabin crews would do.

And why is that? It's because the ToCs don't want to invest in equipping themselves so they can provide an adequate servixe.

All too often we hear that things are outwith ToCs control. When truth is that they are not willing to invest in soing better,

Paying for a spare loco and driver specifically for rescuing a failed train is a stupid waste of money anyway. How often do situations like this occur? And where do you station said loco and driver?

Take the example here with FGW. You would need many dozens of spare locos and drivers around just sitting there incase something broke down (no point having ine at reading if the breakdown happens in devon). Then when it does you find that there are 14 other trains blocking it in so until they are all moved the rescue loco can't get there anyway-probably then looking at a 2-3 hour wait to get the loco to train realistically.

TOCs do have spare drivers and guards but not many-they don't like paying 6-7 drivers to sit around doing nothing all day and I can see their point of view. There may be 2-3 a day from time to time but they arnt there to rescue stranded trains-if someone calls in sick or an additional stock move is needed etc then they will be used so then not spare if something like this does occur.

If you imposed a fine for late rescue of stranded passengers like has been mentioned on here then simply the TOCs would see paying a huge fine every 6 years when something like this happens as a cheaper option than having to pay for multiple rescue trains and crews which would be doing absolutely nothing for 5 years and 364 days!

I know everyone on here thinks they have all the answers and thinks from their armchairs that running a railway is dead simple but the people who do this for a living have thought about all these options and there are things in place to reduce disruption. Unfortunately, from time to time, a major disruption will occur and there will not be a practicle quick fix.

As I have already said a few times, if people are stranded on a failed train in the rush hour then its often seen as best to leave them there so other trains can run around them or else you are shutting the entire line down for hours stranding hundreds of thousands just to rescue a single train load. Its not what people want to hear but the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few I'm afraid.

 

[Andrewlong]

And on Thursday night, I was caught in the following.......

I would like to apologise to passengers whose journeys were delayed last night (Thursday 9 May) following an incident in which a fallen tree blocked the line in the Longcross area. I know that some of our customers suffered significant delays as a result of this incident and I am very sorry about that.

The 17.20 Waterloo to Reading service was severely delayed after striking the tree on the line. Nobody on the train was injured as a result of the incident. However, the train suffered some damage which had to be repaired before it could be moved. There was also some damage caused to around 10 metres of track. Unfortunately the repairs to the train took longer than anticipated and the decision was then taken to instead transfer customers on to a replacement train to return them to Virginia Water Station where they could continue their journeys by road. I understand that this process took a significant amount of time and I would like to apologise to affected passengers for that.

We were in constant touch with the guard who was able to keep passengers on the train updated and we also posted regular updates on via our Twitter feed. In addition, the British Transport Police were present on the train to help provide information to customers.

As a result of this incident, trains were not able to operate between Virginia Water and Ascot for most of the evening. Replacement road transport was put in place between the two locations, using taxis, minibuses and coaches, and a train shuttle service operated between Ascot and Reading.

As a matter of course, we will be reviewing our response to this incident to determine any improvements that can be made for the future.

Once again I would like to apologise to all those affected by this incident.

Arthur Pretorius
Head of Stations
South West Trains/Network Rail Alliance

 

[AlexS]

Now that's customer service for you!

It does occasionally, regrettably, become necessary. Passengers who become aggressive or abusive have to be dealt with for the sake of everyone else. Safety comes before customer service after all. If you don't become aggressive in the first place, you won't be told to pack it in or get arrested.

Having been stood on a bench with what feels like 1000 people all crowded round me, trying to pass on messages and information, it is quite daunting at times. Especially the individuals who feel their situation is more important than anyone else's.

 

[CC 72100]

Now that's customer service for you!

Read all of the post again, and then decide whether you think that's still the case.

 

[jimm]

Exactly. So not sure what the problem is? He seemed to be suggesting they should get nothing because 'hey, stuff happens'. The Delay Repay arrangements are generous and adaquete.

'Stuff' does happen. And when it happens to you in the course of running a business, you must placate the customers as well as fixing the problem.

At no point did I suggest the passengers should not be compensated - FGW has standard procedures in place for this, like all the TOCs. In this case passengers will likely get all their money back. In some cases, the sum is likely to be rather more than the £100 mentioned in the original post.

And like others, I find it very hard to believe that during this entire episode, nothing at all was said about what was wrong with the train or any words of apology uttered. Did the train manager really just say, after a couple of hours 'we're going back to Ealing Broadway and you'll have to get off there and another train will stop to pick you up' or something like that? Hmm.

You seem to have decided to have a go at me because I pointed out that the city of Oxford was in chaos for two days running that same week due to some roadworks - because something broke, like that train to Swansea. In that case, clearly neither Mr Calder, nor any other national newspaper journalists, got caught up in it, otherwise I expect a 'why oh why are the utility companies allowed to treat drivers and an internationally-renowned city like this' piece would have been the result - and, like I said, no-one got a penny, unlike FGW's passengers.

In neither case do people care about whether or not they have a 'contract' - they care about being stuck for ages and feeling unable to do anything about the situation, and that no-one seems bothered about sorting it out, even though I have no doubt FGW's staff were trying to do exactly that throughout this incident.

 

[Goatboy]

You seem to have decided to have a go at me because I pointed out that the city of Oxford was in chaos for two days running that same week due to some roadworks - because something broke, like that train to Swansea. In that case, clearly neither Mr Calder, nor any other national newspaper journalists, got caught up in it, otherwise I expect a 'why oh why are the utility companies allowed to treat drivers and an internationally-renowned city like this' piece would have been the result - and, like I said, no-one got a penny, unlike FGW's passengers.

I am amazed you still think it's relevent. They are two completely different situations so they are incomparable.

In neither case do people care about whether or not they have a 'contract'

They might not 'care' but it's the key reason why you cannot compare the two situations.

The car drivers were taking themselves from A to B. The train passengers had bought service from a commercial organisation for the carriage from A to B. It's this crucial difference that makes the constant tiresome comparisons with stuff going wrong on the road we get here irrelevent.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I suppose the other huge difference between being inconvenienced when in a car is that (motorway foul-ups aside) one can usually escape - by turning around, or getting out or whatever. Whereas on a failed (or otherwise extensively delayed) train, sadly, one is typically kept locked in; frustration arises from the total inability to do anything about it. Frustration so great, there was a reported case last year (IIRC) where the passengers of such a train (wholly understandably) took it upon themselves to exit the train and walk along the track, in such large numbers that nothing could be done to stop them.

The comfort of passengers seems to take a fairly low priority. In the case in point (and I know nothing more of this than I read here) people were held prisoner for a protracted period of time. To me, it's that ONE thing that seems to escape those who manage such situations as a priority. It's reported that the first thing "they" did was send out fitters; and only after fitters had failed to fix did they call in a rescue locomotive.

Arguably, had the passengers been seen as any kind of priority, the FIRST thought would have been how to get these people moving again safely and quickly - even if only to a place where they might alight safely. It appears that it wasn't the first consideration. FGW won't be unique in this; I suspect this lack of priority is endemic throughout the industry, as demonstrated in a Chunnel train failure (I forget when - maybe a year or so back) when passengers were stuck on a train for - was it - five hours. Dismal. Utterly dismal.

 

[jimm]

I am amazed you still think it's relevent. They are two completely different situations so they are incomparable.



They might not 'care' but it's the key reason why you cannot compare the two situations.

The car drivers were taking themselves from A to B. The train passengers had bought service from a commercial organisation for the carriage from A to B. It's this crucial difference that makes the constant tiresome comparisons with stuff going wrong on the road we get here irrelevent.

You really do seem to want to make a meal of this. Forget contracts or any of the other stuff you keep trying to introduce.

The original article's basic premise is that the railways are useless, people get delayed all the time and the railways are useless at dealing with those delays.

The newspapers just don't write this sort of piece about the roads, where there are often long delays, like those in Oxford, when the basic situation is the same - people getting stuck trying to get from A to B. The newspapers feast upon railway punctuality figures with 'look how terrible train punctuality is' type articles.

How often do people's road journeys take the optimum time, based on what the AA website suggests? I could also mention airline punctuality - which makes even Virgin Trains look quite good.

As far as I can see, you don't seem willing to allow any comparison with delays and dismal performance on any other mode of transport. I'll just carry on making whatever comparison I see fit.

As far as I'm concerned, compensation money is a side issue - it's the different treatment the media gives to rail compared with with other modes of transport that gets my goat - in this case, one train breaks down, national newspaper writes 800-word article. Major city's road system crippled for two days by some roadworks - national newspaper writes... nothing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suppose the other huge difference between being inconvenienced when in a car is that (motorway foul-ups aside) one can usually escape - by turning around, or getting out or whatever. Whereas on a failed (or otherwise extensively delayed) train, sadly, one is typically kept locked in; frustration arises from the total inability to do anything about it. Frustration so great, there was a reported case last year (IIRC) where the passengers of such a train (wholly understandably) took it upon themselves to exit the train and walk along the track, in such large numbers that nothing could be done to stop them.

The comfort of passengers seems to take a fairly low priority. In the case in point (and I know nothing more of this than I read here) people were held prisoner for a protracted period of time. To me, it's that ONE thing that seems to escape those who manage such situations as a priority. It's reported that the first thing "they" did was send out fitters; and only after fitters had failed to fix did they call in a rescue locomotive.

Arguably, had the passengers been seen as any kind of priority, the FIRST thought would have been how to get these people moving again safely and quickly - even if only to a place where they might alight safely. It appears that it wasn't the first consideration. FGW won't be unique in this; I suspect this lack of priority is endemic throughout the industry, as demonstrated in a Chunnel train failure (I forget when - maybe a year or so back) when passengers were stuck on a train for - was it - five hours. Dismal. Utterly dismal.

And you would suggest that FGW and Network Rail should do what to get 500 people off a train stuck on the Great Western Main Line a few miles out of Paddington in the middle of a Friday evening peak with dozens of other trains running?

PS: You just try finding an alternative route in Oxford traffic when the place is seized up. It's nothing like as easy as you and Goatboy seem to think.

 

[Flamingo]

Now that's customer service for you!

Yes, confronting an unruly/disruptive passenger is good customer service, when the easy option is walk away from them and lock oneself in the rear cab. There is more to customer service than tugging your forelock, regardless of what they are doing, just because somebody has bought some sort of ticket. Everybody around them has bought the same ticket and is in the same situation, they deserve as pleasant an environment as can be provided in the situation - some self-important **** shouting the odds does not improve the wait for everybody else.

 

[NSEFAN]

You really do seem to want to make a meal of this. Forget contracts or any of the other stuff you keep trying to introduce.

The original article's basic premise is that the railways are useless, people get delayed all the time and the railways are useless at dealing with those delays.

The newspapers just don't write this sort of piece about the roads, where there are often long delays, like those in Oxford, when the basic situation is the same - people getting stuck trying to get from A to B. The newspapers feast upon railway punctuality figures with 'look how terrible train punctuality is' type articles.

How often do people's road journeys take the optimum time, based on what the AA website suggests? I could also mention airline punctuality - which makes even Virgin Trains look quite good.

As far as I can see, you don't seem willing to allow any comparison with delays and dismal performance on any other mode of transport. I'll just carry on making whatever comparison I see fit.

The presence of a contract is probably what makes the difference. The roads are free to use (at the point of service at least), whilst the railway is not. Consequently the expectation of quality from the railways is higher than that from the roads, especially given how expensive tickets can be nowadays. Combine this with the fact that the press just love a good bashing of the railways, and you can see why the industry gets (in my opinion) unfair levels of bad publicity.

 

[Goatboy]

The original article's basic premise is that the railways are useless, people get delayed all the time and the railways are useless at dealing with those delays.

Correct (Correct in that this is the premise, I don't agree the railways are useless, just for clarification!)

The newspapers just don't write this sort of piece about the roads, where there are often long delays, like those in Oxford, when the basic situation is the same - people getting stuck trying to get from A to B.

The basic situation is, of course, not the same. The railways are a paid for service, the roads are not.

A better comparison would be buses stuck in the roadworks - that would be the same thing. As would planes stuck at an airport.

But comparing rail service with people driving cars is not because the two things are fundamentally different.

How often do people's road journeys take the optimum time, based on what the AA website suggests?

Cars do not operate to a published timetable. Buses do - so feel free to use that as your analogy, instead.

I could also mention airline punctuality - which makes even Virgin Trains look quite good.

The airline industry is also subject to really quite punative compensation requirements, too. And yes, they are frequently the source of media-irk when things go wrong.

As far as I can see, you don't seem willing to allow any comparison with delays and dismal performance on any other mode of transport.

Compare rail with bus, coach, plane, etc all you want. All of these are offering timetable service provision in exchange for money.

Private road transport does not offer this.

 

[dcsprior]

As said previously, leaving people in the train is often the least disruptive. Ok the 500 people in that train don't see it that way but the thousands if others going past on the other lines are better off rather than suspending all trains for an hour whilst you walk 500 people up the track or onto another train leaving everyone else without any service.

An hour to move passengers onto one of the other trains that the original article mentioned overtook the failed one? Five to ten minutes seems more likely. Also, is the track at this point 2- or 4- track? Surely if its 4-track, then other services can continue to run.

Of course, there's probably loads of health and safety rules which prevent this - doubtless designed to protect people who're too stupid to walk a few yards between tracks without wandering in front of a moving train, or otherwise becoming contenders for a Darwin Award.

To predict some of the replies - no I've never worked on the railways or had any close friends or family who have. But I do know that the human race has managed to land on the moon, break the sound barrier in the air and on land, and build vessels which can run submerged for months at a time. Getting passengers off a train within 30 minutes seems easier than any of these things.

 

[A-driver]

An hour to move passengers onto one of the other trains that the original article mentioned overtook the failed one? Five to ten minutes seems more likely. Also, is the track at this point 2- or 4- track? Surely if its 4-track, then other services can continue to run.

Of course, there's probably loads of health and safety rules which prevent this - doubtless designed to protect people who're too stupid to walk a few yards between tracks without wandering in front of a moving train, or otherwise becoming contenders for a Darwin Award.

To predict some of the replies - no I've never worked on the railways or had any close friends or family who have. But I do know that the human race has managed to land on the moon, break the sound barrier in the air and on land, and build vessels which can run submerged for months at a time. Getting passengers off a train within 30 minutes seems easier than any of these things.

So you think you can get a rush hour train with 500+ passengers off on train via a ladder, over ballast, up a ladder to another train with bags, high heals, elderly, disabled, drunk, unruly, children etc in 5-19 mins?

I'm afraid you don't have clue what you are talking about. You can think what you want but those of us who have done exactly what you are describing know for a FCC with no arguments that it is a very long process.

You can't just open all the doors and tell people to jump down 5 foot to the uneven ballast (like walking on a scree slope) and then scramble up onto another train. You would have broken legs all over the place! You have to get ladders, guide people down, help the with luggage, bikes, pushchairs, no chance with those in wheelchairs or walking difficulties.

Sorry to be harsh but until you know what you are talking about I wouldn't bother posting such rubbish on here!

 

[185]

I have every respect for Simon Calder, although he did some work for FirstGroup in 2006, he is not frightened to criticise them when they screw up.... a quality long vanished in the likes of the slowly-dying Rail magazine, which is now 50% filled with adverts from TOCs and Roscos - advertising revenue the magazine are desperate to keep by not upsetting those advertisers. Even it's former hatchet-job man Christian Wall-Mart seems reluctant to criticise some of the train companies.

 

[dcsprior]

So you think you can get a rush hour train with 500+ passengers off on train via a ladder, over ballast, up a ladder to another train with bags, high heals, elderly, disabled, drunk, unruly, children etc in 5-19 mins?

Well announce that those who're capable of walking over unassisted (and state that this specifically excludes those under 16, wearing high-heals or carrying more baggage than a rucksack or laptop bag) should do so. This sorts the problem for ~90% of people.

Sorry to be harsh but until you know what you are talking about I wouldn't bother posting such rubbish on here!

Please see the final paragraph of my post. As I said I know nothing about railways, beyond being a regular passenger on one, but it seems wrong that mankind can land a man on the moon, but can't rescue passengers from a failed train in a reasonable time.

To expand upon this slightly - in most fields, almost anything is possible given enough focus/effort/money. It would seem from some other posts on here that TOC's focus is on minimising total delays rather than minimising the length of the worst delays - this strikes me as wrong: better to have 20 trains delayed by 30 minutes, than one delayed by 3 hours.

 

[dcsprior]

Please see the final paragraph of my post. As I said I know nothing about railways

As your posts keep proving...

You don't need to know anything about the railways to have an instinctive "feel" that this shouldn't be as hard as people are making it, or to know that for almost everything (in all walks of life) anything is do-able if given enough focus/money/effort.