How to deal with a TOC that won't engage with you? - Platform alterations at Leyland station

[AutoUnder]

I am currently having issues trying to engage with Northern over an issue with platform alterations at Leyland station. At the moment, the station CIS will only announce and display a platform alteration if a train arrives at the platform it wasn't booked to arrive at, which results in passengers having to run over the footbridge in order to catch their service. Although the signallers will inform station staff in advance of an alteration, they can only do an announcement manually, which ends up conflicting with the CIS and results in confusion among passengers. There have also been many instances of the signaller failing to call in advance or an alteration occurring when the station isn't staffed.

I have investigated this issue and discovered there is sufficient train describer data avaliable on either side of Leyland station that will accurately indicate a platform alteration at least 2 minutes (and up to 5 minutes) before a service arrives:

I have tried to pass my findings onto Northern on numerous occasions and whilst they say it has been passed on and investigated, nothing seems to change. I try sending follow-ups to which I just recieve the same response. I have tried contacting the customer information manager for Northern and whilst his initial response was promising, once again I heard nothing else from them and any follow-ups were seemingly ignored. I have also attempted to get in touch with KeTech (the CIS software provider for Northern) but they have said they cannot implement any changes by request from a 3rd party and it is upto Northern to request this.

I am honestly so frustrated how difficult it is being trying to engage with Northern over this, despite me doing the hard work to begin with of finding a solution to this issue. I have contacted my local MP and am currently waiting to hear back from him. If anyone else has any advice on how to progress with this, it would be much appreciated. I would be more than happy to have however many meetings or discussions necessary with Northern or KeTech on how this can be resolved.

 

[Adam Williams]

Consider sending an FoIA request for internal discussions of the matter, it'll probably shed light on what discussions have happened so far and what barriers they see as existing here.

 

[AutoUnder]

Consider sending an FoIA request for internal discussions of the matter, it'll probably shed light on what discussions have happened so far and what barriers they see as existing here.

That's a really good idea. I will definitely do that

 

[Egg Centric]

In the meantime look at the bright side - you know where the train is coming and everyone else doesn't, so you have your pick of seats!

 

[saismee]

Certainly a relevant thread, though it doesn't answer your question: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/commuter-knew-better-than-apps.279737/
Seems to be a few places across the network where this happens.

 

[DarloRich]

Without wishing to be rude it might be that this issue isn't important enough to be a priority for the TOC.

 

[saismee]

Without wishing to be rude it might be that this issue isn't important enough to be a priority for the TOC.

While I agree that this is likely true, it's also just not good enough for the customers. If enough people are loud enough about it, it could be seen as important enough and actually get changed. Imagine if customer services had to deal with a complaint from every single person affected each time. I'm sure it'd be resolved quite soon.

 

[DarloRich]

While I agree that this is likely true, it's also just not good enough for the customers. If enough people are loud enough about it, it could be seen as important enough and actually get changed. Imagine if customer services had to deal with a complaint from every single person affected each time. I'm sure it'd be resolved quite soon.

I have had plenty of dealings with LNWR and it takes ages to get fobbed off!

The truth is only the annoying people like me contact them to complain. Must just tut and get on with it!

 

[saismee]

The truth is only the annoying people like me contact them to complain. Must just tut and get on with it!

Maybe we should all strive to be a bit more like you... annoying.
It's certainly easier for most to just seethe and deal with it, but then the decision-makers in an office somewhere won't have a big enough statistic of complaints. A FoIA request might make someone look a little closer, even if no discussions have taken place. It's so frustrating to see the TOCs completely ignore issues when customer service is supposed to be their priority!!

 

[ricoblade]

A similar situation often happens with Northern at Sheffield where the CIS displays the B end of the platform 5 for the Scarborough train and most passengers wait there, when the train is already waiting at the A end (obvious to old gricers like me and, as above, I get on a quiet train and pick my seat). This is exacerbated by the CIS then showing the later Leeds service from the A end. Cue confusion with Leeds passengers boarding the Scarborough service and increasingly strident announcements from the conductor.

I've often wondered how to/whether it's worth it pointing this out to someone but didn't know who and the above probably means that nothing will be done.

 

[GordonT]

Would it be worth trying the "organ grinder" approach and writing to Northern's MD, Tricia Williams setting out your current impasse?
Writing a letter to Modern Railways generally and/or their columnist Alan Williams specifically might be another option.

 

[BG2024]

I only use Leyland about once every 6/8 weeks, but I've seen several last-minute platform changes. Usually a Manchester Airport service booked for P4 getting shifted to P2. Seen a fair few people sat on P4 ignore or fail to hear the announcement and only realise they've missed their train as it's pulling away from P2. Even if they do hear it, it's a challenge for airport passengers with loads of luggage to get to P2 from the far end of P4, and usually depends on the guard being aware enough to see them struggling and wait for them.

 

[BlueLeanie]

If you aren't getting engagement, then it's time to go physically knocking on doors.

 

[Geeves]

Its easy for stations that have access to the system that actually changes the CIS monitors, I would go down that route that giving the Leyland ticket office access to a version of the Ketech system that allows them access to change their own platforms, its purely a case of requesting access via a system they already have in the ticket office, then giving them half an hour to get to know how to use it. That would certainly be easier than trying to get Ketech to adjust things at their end, issue there being the system can only change things when it knows what's happening via route setting etc as you have seen, there's just no way you could program it to be able to predict these things in advance beyond the few minutes, its the same everywhere.

As others have said one person is looking after the CIS and PA systems for hundreds of stations minus the few stations that have some one who is either working it full time like Victoria or others where they just have access to adjust certain things like the platforms. They are not even going to be noticing or likely informed at all about a platform alteration at Leyland.

Its also unlikely that there would be time for Leyland station to ring control to get the screens changed before the train is already in the platform, Maybe Preston Powerbox could ring control but either way its not really in their JD unless the signaller was feeling extra keen! I think railway geography itself is against the good folks of Leyland!

 

[td97]

I reported to Northern in early 2023 that station announcements about short platforms were still playing for stations with platform extensions completed in 2019. It took around 12-18 months longer for this to be fixed.

 

[AutoUnder]

Thank you for your advice everyone. The FOI route is definitely something I am going to pursue as it will definitely prove what they have and have not done.

I only use Leyland about once every 6/8 weeks, but I've seen several last-minute platform changes. Usually a Manchester Airport service booked for P4 getting shifted to P2. Seen a fair few people sat on P4 ignore or fail to hear the announcement and only realise they've missed their train as it's pulling away from P2. Even if they do hear it, it's a challenge for airport passengers with loads of luggage to get to P2 from the far end of P4, and usually depends on the guard being aware enough to see them struggling and wait for them.

The frustrating thing is from an operational perspective, that is not last minute at all. Once the service passes Ribble Junction on slow line, it has to arrive on platform 2. That's the point I am trying to make to them.

Its easy for stations that have access to the system that actually changes the CIS monitors, I would go down that route that giving the Leyland ticket office access to a version of the Ketech system that allows them access to change their own platforms, its purely a case of requesting access via a system they already have in the ticket office, then giving them half an hour to get to know how to use it. That would certainly be easier than trying to get Ketech to adjust things at their end, issue there being the system can only change things when it knows what's happening via route setting etc as you have seen, there's just no way you could program it to be able to predict these things in advance beyond the few minutes, its the same everywhere.

As others have said one person is looking after the CIS and PA systems for hundreds of stations minus the few stations that have some one who is either working it full time like Victoria or others where they just have access to adjust certain things like the platforms. They are not even going to be noticing or likely informed at all about a platform alteration at Leyland.

Its also unlikely that there would be time for Leyland station to ring control to get the screens changed before the train is already in the platform, Maybe Preston Powerbox could ring control but either way its not really in their JD unless the signaller was feeling extra keen! I think railway geography itself is against the good folks of Leyland!

Whilst that would prevent the conflict of information among customers on the platform, it is still a manual intervention and relies on station staff being informed that an alteration is about to occur. There have been several instances of the signaller either forgetting to call ahead or putting the train on the wrong platform by mistake. I definitely agree that the railway geography of Leyland is not ideal and the best solution would definitely be resignalling of the area but the solution I put forward is (theoretically) just a simple software adjustment that uses data that is already available and used by the CIS, just only when the train actually arrives.

The FOI request has been made! Just need to wait and see what happens

Short-notice platform alterations at Leyland - a Freedom of Information request to Northern Trains Limited

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to request copies of all internal communications with your customer information and controk team and communications with KeTech regarding short-notice platform alterations at Leyland station. Yours faithfully, Dylan Fox

www.whatdotheyknow.com

 

[Haywain]

I have also attempted to get in touch with KeTech (the CIS software provider for Northern) but they have said they cannot implement any changes by request from a 3rd party and it is upto Northern to request this.

As a supplier to Northern they will not, and should not, deal with you. They will have a contract with Northern that will set out how changes are requested, made and paid for, and will be expected to stick to that.

 

[Snow1964]

Without wishing to be rude it might be that this issue isn't important enough to be a priority for the TOC.

Serving and helping customers who pay fares, not a priority....

sometimes I think the railway don't care about those who contribute funds that partly go towards paying staff, if it means they have easy life.

 

[Haywain]

sometimes I think the railway don't care about those who contribute funds that partly go towards paying staff, if it means they have easy life.

Sometime it isn't realised just how busy those people having an easy life really are. Things have to be prioritised.

 

[AutoUnder]

Certainly a relevant thread, though it doesn't answer your question: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/commuter-knew-better-than-apps.279737/
Seems to be a few places across the network where this happens.

I've just had a read through that and that is exactly what is happening here! I have also tried to inform people in the past when this has happened but they either ignore you or tell you that you're wrong because the CIS says otherwise, which is just more hassle that it's worth. I noticed as well in that thread saying it isn't viable to produce a bespoke solution for each station. I completely understand that trying to search every station to see if alterations could be a problem wouldn't be but if you are getting complaints for specific stations, I don't see why they cannot be investigated. It should also be noted that for more moderns signalling systems which have route data (S-Class), the CIS will automatically update for platform alteration as soon as the signaller sets the route for the train. This issue will definitely become less frequent as signalling is upgraded all the time but whilst a software alternative is avaliable, I don't see what's stopping them

 

[AutoUnder]

Sometime it isn't realised just how busy those people having an easy life really are. Things have to be prioritised.

You would think this situation would be a priority though? It's a safety risk as a result of people having to run to their train, accessibility risk as people who are physically disabled will be at a disadvantage and also a potential finacial risk from delay repay claims possible legal action. From discussions I've had with Network Rail over this, it is a priority to them as they consider it a trespass risk but it's now beyond their remit as they don't operate the CIS at Leyland.

 

[Haywain]

You would think this situation would be a priority though?

You may think so, but if you are the only person who has contacted them to complain it won't have the urgency that it would have if multiple people have complained. And there might be a lot more to it than you realise. However, the point I was making above is that the railway is not overstaffed because, over the last 35 years, the one place that train operating companies have been able to cut costs is in staffing.

 

[DarloRich]

Serving and helping customers who pay fares, not a priority....

sometimes I think the railway don't care about those who contribute funds that partly go towards paying staff, if it means they have easy life.

Or, perhaps, bigger fish for the very limited number of staff to fry

 

[zwk500]

This is a classic area where the railway should be doing better - after all, the data is all there and hosted by the railway!

However, Haywain has identified the critical issue:

They will have a contract with Northern that will set out how changes are requested, made and paid for, and will be expected to stick to that.

As Northern are under Operator of Last Resort management, the ultimate decision whether or not to pay for the changes to the system likely resides at Whitehall.

From the outside, if the CIS system works off the TD Berth data, it does not seem impossible that it could be configured to have a 'look ahead' for stations where it is possible to identify the platform change in advance, such as at Leyland.
However, as @AutoUnder has demonstrated, for each station there can be multiple approaches that require an individual to sit down and identify the earliest suitable berth for which each platform would definitively be known. Northern serve more than 500 stations, each of which would need an initial sift as to whether it is necessary to provide this look ahead and then if so require somebody to sit down with the signalling diagrams and identify the berths required for the CIS provider to then write into their code. This would include any stations with fast/slow lines, stations with more platforms than lines, stations with reversible lines, and stations where trains may be terminated in 'unusual' platforms.
There's potentially several thousand lines of data to generate, review and implement, even just among Northern (although of course something like this should be rolled out nationally). It's absolutely possible to do, but it will cost, and somebody needs to pay for it. I am not surprised OP hasn't got very far, if they don't have a funding source for such a change.

 

[Adam Williams]

As a supplier to Northern they will not, and should not, deal with you. They will have a contract with Northern that will set out how changes are requested, made and paid for, and will be expected to stick to that.

I've gotta say there's a lot of this in the industry that I find frustrating, in that it's not Northern's product. They might be an important customer, but the supplier should be driving the continuous product improvement, particularly where defects and security fixes are concerned. A good recent example outside of the customer information sphere: Raileasy found a particular TIS supplier had a broken ToD implementation and the machines would refuse to print certain valid tickets. We reported that directly to the TIS supplier with a comprehensive set of information around what was going wrong, test data, video of the problem, how to trigger the bug etc. I don't really care what the TOC's view on that particular bug is - it simply shouldn't be their call, the machine didn't follow the industry-wide spec. Although our bug report was ultimately accepted, there was a view expressed that it should've come from the TOC and nobody else. I would much rather talk informally to a supplier though, than go through the whole rigmarole of raising it as an accreditation issue, and then indirectly having to play Chinese whispers with someone who probably hasn't been given enough context when it eventually gets sign-off and ends up getting looked at.

I can only assume that there's something wrong with the contracts that are being agreed here if the manufacturers are refusing to do literally anything to their systems without being paid separately on a piecemeal basis and having the TOC micromanage every little change.

Now, this thread involves what I would describe as pretty undesirable behaviour but it's probably behaviour that meets the original design of the system, so I think it's less clear cut. Recluctantly, I would characterise this more as an enhancement given the context in OP's other thread; but it's one that should be a common sense passenger experience improvement.

 

[D3WY]

I don't see why it's a issue unless the TOC is not allowing passengers enough time to move platform? I'd have thought the reasoning behind the alterations are irrelevant as long as the train/s that come in on a different platform is held longer to allow everyone to move over. It's supposed to be normal process to hold a train to give plenty of time even if it means making the service late. Better to be late than leave people behind.

 

[Adam Williams]

I don't see why it's a issue unless the TOC is not allowing passengers enough time to move platform?

Because it's rubbish when you can work this out from TD, and give passengers more warning.

We should be striving to improve the accuracy of customer information shared via the CIS / systems like Darwin etc. It's helpful for e.g. customers with hearing issues or other disabilities too, who might otherwise end up stuck in the dark.

I'm glad that there are some smaller organisations doing innovative work in this space, and it's perhaps a good reminder of why alternatives to e.g. Darwin are actually important.

It's absolutely possible to do, but it will cost, and somebody needs to pay for it

And do you think it'd cost more or less money than the taxpayer money Northern threw down the drain on an "innovative chemical-free cleaner" which turned out to be nothing more than spray bottles of water?

 

[AutoUnder]

I don't see why it's a issue unless the TOC is not allowing passengers enough time to move platform? I'd have thought the reasoning behind the alterations are irrelevant as long as the train/s that come in on a different platform is held longer to allow everyone to move over. It's supposed to be normal process to hold a train to give plenty of time even if it means making the service late. Better to be late than leave people behind.

It depends on the guard. Leyland only has one member of ticket office staff and no dispatchers. Some guards will notice and will hold the train for a bit longer whilst others just dispatch it as normal, claiming they don't have time to wait.

I remember one guard I spoke to was very rude and was adamant I was wrong. Tried to show him the timetable and was having none of it. Was also very rude to passengers trying to board. I submitted a complaint to Northern about him

You may think so, but if you are the only person who has contacted them to complain it won't have the urgency that it would have if multiple people have complained. And there might be a lot more to it than you realise. However, the point I was making above is that the railway is not overstaffed because, over the last 35 years, the one place that train operating companies have been able to cut costs is in staffing.

If there's more to it than I realise, then they should say so. I have clearly said to them I want a response as to either when this will be implemented or if they can't, why that is. There are also several complaints on X about this exact issue at Leyland going back years

 

[Haywain]

Because it's rubbish when you can work this out from TD, and give passengers more warning.

It is, and there are many places where it happens.

 

[zwk500]

And do you think it'd cost more or less money than the taxpayer money Northern threw down the drain on an "innovative chemical-free cleaner" which turned out to be nothing more than spray bottles of water?

Probably a fair bit more. Software changes tend to be rather more expensive than spray bottles of water. Regardless, this is a complete straw man.