New Government research on disruption handling

[AngusH]

There is new research by the government about passenger views on disruptions:

Passenger experience of rail disruption handling in Great Britain

Views of rail passengers on unplanned rail disruption handling from research conducted in 2019.

www.gov.uk

Some of the results are obvious (passengers dislike disruption, etc), but I thought other details were notable:

e.g the detail on information quality and perception of passengers was interesting:

Another key driver for satisfaction with the handling of the disruption was the satisfaction with the information received during the disruption: 66% of those who felt that the information received during the disruption was good or very good, also felt that the rail company involved in the disruption handled this well, whilst only 5% thought the rail company didn’t handle the disruption well, this difference is statistically significant. Similarly, 74% of participants who felt the information received was poor or very poor also thought the handling was poor.

[p30]

It fits what I've often thought, but evidence is better than anecdotes.

Secondly, 98% of respondents want disruption information to be either "quite detailed" (37%) or "very detailed" (61%).
Only 2% want it to be "not detailed".

There was also a really positive comment about Virgin Trains handling of a disruption and special mention of the excellence of Meldreth station manager.

 

[Surreytraveller]

People just want to know what's going on, and someone to provide alternatives, or enough information to allow them to make their own decision about alternative

 

[Ianno87]

The recent push of publishing quite detailed explanations/threads of problems on Twitter with diagrams and images does seem to be popular.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It fits what I've often thought, but evidence is better than anecdotes.

Secondly, 98% of respondents want disruption information to be either "quite detailed" (37%) or "very detailed" (61%).
Only 2% want it to be "not detailed".

There was also a really positive comment about Virgin Trains handling of a disruption and special mention of the excellence of Meldreth station manager.

Yes, and it's all quite obvious really but unfortunately there are people on the railway, and this forum, who take the view that delays and the reason for them are none of passengers' business and they try to be as evasive as possible.

Most people aren't stupid, they know if there is a signal fault or someone has jumped in front of a train they are going to be delayed and there is nothing rail staff can do to reduce the delay. However, they do want to know what is going on, an approximation of the delay and to be informed of developments. Also, assuming they are at a station and not stuck on a train, they want to know whether there are any alternative routes or services they can take to minimise the delay.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, and it's all quite obvious really but unfortunately there are people on the railway, and this forum, who take the view that delays and the reason for them are none of passengers' business and they try to be as evasive as possible.

Most people aren't stupid, they know if there is a signal fault or someone has jumped in front of a train they are going to be delayed and there is nothing rail staff can do to reduce the delay. However, they do want to know what is going on, an approximation of the delay and to be informed of developments. Also, assuming they are at a station and not stuck on a train, they want to know whether there are any alternative routes or services they can take to minimise the delay.

Quite. And we even get government documents and ministers* who seem to think that the recording, understanding and attribution of delays to those who can do something to prevent them recurring (like BR did) is a scandalous waste of time and money and really ought to be scrapped.

(*Not to mention some on these forums.)

 

[Skie]

The VT habit of announcing updates connections during a delayed journey has been recognised.

 

[Spartacus]

Yes, and it's all quite obvious really but unfortunately there are people on the railway, and this forum, who take the view that delays and the reason for them are none of passengers' business and they try to be as evasive as possible.

There's also those who think every time information isn't given out or ends up being incorrect that something was deliberately being kept from them or they've been deliberately lied to. The trouble is that often things aren't known in depth immediately, or can be very fluid in the problems they'll cause. Sometimes people just don't want to give out much information if they know that in a short time it could be proven to be wrong. Sometimes the member of staff who would given out that information might be so busy with the incident concerned that passing details on to their passengers would only cause further delay.

 

[Taunton]

Seems to concentrate on information dissemination.

Separately, something to look at is the way that the time taken to get straight again from any given disruption, large or small, has gone way up, and in some cases spiralled out of control. The near-three months to recover from the recent Stonehaven derailment reached a new low.

 

[Wolfie]

Judging by experience at Euston today (see my thread on Ticket Acceptance for more details) what the TOCs claim to aspire to and what actually happens on the ground aren't even in the same universe.
Information dissemination is fine if the information being disseminated is actually acted on and not completely ignored by TOC staff who "know better".

 

[RHolmes]

Judging by experience at Euston today (see my thread on Ticket Acceptance for more details) what the TOCs claim to aspire to and what actually happens on the ground aren't even in the same universe.
Information dissemination is fine if the information being disseminated is actually acted on and not completely ignored by TOC staff who "know better".

In fairness to your situation and thread, often in times of disruption staff on the ground can simply not receive the message.

At my TOC, In order to receive something like information on ticket acceptance, it requires me to have my work phone:

- constantly on my person (sometimes this may be in the cab whilst I’m trying to sort out an issue with the train or passenger)
- with a working SIM card
- on and charged (often the battery will die as it’s used for other work related duties)
- a good connection to 4G at all times
- for my email application to be logged in at all times (of which it does sign itself out due to security)
- or for me to be manually checking disruption apps at every station, every few minutes as things on the railway change constantly

This is an example of why in the past I’ve personally not received information, recently for just over two weeks I was awaiting a SIM card replacement (as mine had corrupted) and had no contact with Control bar GSMR or my personal phone.

It’s not always a case of “staff who know better” or incompetence.

 

[Wolfie]

In fairness to your situation and thread, often in times of disruption staff on the ground can simply not receive the message.

At my TOC, In order to receive something like information on ticket acceptance, it requires me to have my work phone:

- constantly on my person (sometimes this may be in the cab whilst I’m trying to sort out an issue with the train or passenger)
- with a working SIM card
- on and charged (often the battery will die as it’s used for other work related duties)
- a good connection to 4G at all times
- for my email application to be logged in at all times (of which it does sign itself out due to security)
- or for me to be manually checking disruption apps at every station, every few minutes as things on the railway change constantly

This is an example of why in the past I’ve personally not received information, recently for just over two weeks I was awaiting a SIM card replacement (as mine had corrupted) and had no contact with Control bar GSMR or my personal phone.

It’s not always a case of “staff who know better” or incompetence.

Firstly thank you for the courtesy of replying. However, l did have functional technology, showed that to the staff and received a stern ignoring in response. Frankly, receiving a mealy-mouthed (yes, l've dealt with TOCs before) semi-apology letter after the event won't cut it. This is, after all, ticket acceptance that's been in place since Friday. I wonder how understanding Avanti would have been had l taken the train contrary to the announcements?

 

[Ashley Hill]

To be fair it's a bit harsh to always blame the staff on the ground. Often we can only act on the information passed down from above. Without that any information given out could be incorrect.
Also when stopped at a signal often the only response you get from the GSM-R is 'wait'. That's ok if the signaller thinks it's only for a few minutes but 10 mins later and the same response gives you nothing to tell your passengers other than apologies. Yes the signalmans busy and so are control,and if it's quite a serious problem you are then held in a queue waiting for your phone call to be answered. After all it's not just your train they're dealing with.

 

[mmh]

I'm afraid in this example I don't think it's harsh to blame the staff on the ground. The passenger showed the staff the website stating ticket acceptance was in place. The staff member for their own reason decided not to accept this - quite why is difficult to comprehend. What difference does it make to them, unless it appeals to a nature quite unsuited to customer service. If they felt (why?) that it could be incorrect, they know who to contact to check - the passenger doesn't.

 

[Randomer]

I think there is probably a discernible difference about communicating the cause of a delay to passengers especially when on a train vs. knowing whether ticket acceptance is in place. One doesn't cause any disadvantage to passengers and one definitely does if the wrong information is told.

Surely the most passenger friendly thing to do if you can't access email/work app or other information source is to accept that ticket acceptance is in place if the passenger is insistent? After all if you know disruption if occurring the risk is one mostly of revenue?

It seems like some staff treat it as a similar issue to a person only being given what they took as verbal authority to travel i.e. the old "the staff on the platform said I could get the train" in times of no disruption. When in reality if disruption is occurring then does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Examples where people have been denied acceptance when showing an authoritative information source i.e. it is stated on the NRE site just aren't an acceptable way to treat customers.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm afraid in this example I don't think it's harsh to blame the staff on the ground. The passenger showed the staff the website stating ticket acceptance was in place. The staff member for their own reason decided not to accept this - quite why is difficult to comprehend. What difference does it make to them, unless it appeals to a nature quite unsuited to customer service. If they felt (why?) that it could be incorrect, they know who to contact to check - the passenger doesn't.

What made it worse was that the Avanti 0950 service to Wolvo was virtually empty. The delayed 1001 LNWR service (destined for Crewe) which l was forced to initially take was relatively heaving to the extent of Guard apologies and First class declassification. So much for social distancing in a pandemic....

 

[Horizon22]

The report contains the core that most TOCs know - detailed information, timely information, alternatives and a human voice. It’s the consistent delivery that’s harder.

The issue during disruption is the resolution because a trespasser at 8am on Monday outside your main terminal is different to 1pm on a Saturday.

Also many train crew, station staff on controllers may not know how long the issue may continue. Do you give out the contingency information out ASAP or wait? You might say “sorry for the delay, change here for another route” and then 5 minutes later it’s all resolved and you’ve tried to be helpful but actually delayed people further. Things can change very fast and staff sometimes would rather give out nothing than misguide. And even when a plan is agreed, it can change...

There’s a lot of judgment calls in disruption. And a lot comes down to communication - which I’ve mentioned before on similar threads - so that information is passed on. There’s a hell of a lot of information broadcast but sometimes you have to find out where it is sometimes or have it passed down from Control. And when you’re back is up against the wall, things are naturally missed. How Control teams are set up can play a vital part so there’s adequate resource to do this as required. And sometimes it just comes down to the quality of staff on shift and how proactive they are.

In theory it’s all good - but in reality so much harder when your workload quadruples in 20 minutes. And you can’t have endless spare resource sitting around.

Seems to concentrate on information dissemination.

Separately, something to look at is the way that the time taken to get straight again from any given disruption, large or small, has gone way up, and in some cases spiralled out of control. The near-three months to recover from the recent Stonehaven derailment reached a new low.

Not related to Stonehaven but in “normal” service this is because of the “knock-on delays” phenomenon.
Essentially running more trains exponentially increases the recovery time.

One of the things to hopefully from COVID (and GBR one hopes) is a realisation that throwing as many trains as possible in at the peak is likely to cause an unsustainable service as one minor issue has significant knock-on impacts - and is ultimately why your driver 4 trains behind or crew on the back working may not know why the train was late.

This has already been mentioned by key people at Network Rail though (“don’t expect so many peak trains”) and anyone who works in service delivery knows this is a self-evident truth (look how good performance has been the past year), so hopefully we’re on the right path.

 

[Annetts key]

The topic throws up some interesting questions.

Unfortunately, sometimes finding solutions is not as easy as you would think.

With problems, faults and defects with the infrastructure, often when the problem first occurs, there is not much information available. Any estimates on restoration will be mainly guesses until a team has arrived on site to investigate. There is absolutely no point in telling passengers an estimated restoration time until a team has arrived on site and reported back their initial assessment. Further, with some problems, the extent of the problem is not obvious when first reported. And the full extent only becomes clear some time later. Again, information may not become available until a team is on site.

It takes time for a team to arrive on site. Over the years, in an effort to save money, teams have been centralised (compared to more local smaller depots) and in some cases there are less staff available. This obviously sometimes has an effect on response times.

Before a team gets on site, although the available information is limited, it’s important that what information is available is accurately passed on to them. So it should be possible for this information to be worded in a way that is understandable by passengers.

Once a team gets on site, obviously their primary job is to evaluate the problem and if possible fix it. However, the railway already has a process for them to pass on information on the problem upwards. We would not want to pester the team and interrupt them from their work to fix the problem. I don’t however see a problem with taking the information that they already provide and again, word it in a way that is understandable by passengers.

And yes, over time, the information may well change. Maybe for the good, or for the bad. Especially as resolution of the problem may take hours. Sometimes days.

In order for the information to be worded so that it is something that the passengers understand, first we need railway people who understand the information in the first place. The infrastructure can be very, very complex. Sometimes control get it completely wrong for example.

The other big problem is that control is normally staffed for normal operations. When there is a big problem, they can become swamped. This can apply to the signaller as well. But if you have extra staff available to cope, that costs money regardless if there is disruption or not. And the railways have been, and still are being told to reduce costs...

One other point. Rather ironically, it’s easier for a team attending a problem if the fault or defect causes all trains at that location to be stopped. If the problem is intermittent or the signaller can still keep (some) trains moving (day talking past red signals), the team on site has to wait until they are granted access (and that normally means no trains in the area or getting the trains stopped).

So, yes, I am very much in favour of accurate and reasonable detailed information being provided to passengers. Especially they should be told the actual location (including between which stations this affects), and not just “in the XYZ area” where the XYZ area is a large area.

So for example, if there is flooding at Cowley Bridge Junction, I would want the information to the passengers to say that due to flooding of the line at Cowley Bridge Junction, between Exeter St. David’s and Tiverton Parkway, trains between ... will be ... etc. Rather than the less than helpful “Due to flooding in the Exeter area trains may be delayed or cancelled”.

 

[SynthD]

The recent push of publishing quite detailed explanations/threads of problems on Twitter with diagrams and images does seem to be popular.

What are your favourites, that other Tocs should aim for?

 

[Horizon22]

What are your favourites, that other Tocs should aim for?

NR Kent and Sussex do good threads. Here's a recent one: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1394571511202201602

 

[IanXC]

NR Kent and Sussex do good threads. Here's a recent one: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1394571511202201602

That is very good, and there is something rather optimal about NR explaining the fault, while the TOC's explain the impact on service and deal with specific journey issues.

 

[tbtc]

Quite. And we even get government documents and ministers* who seem to think that the recording, understanding and attribution of delays to those who can do something to prevent them recurring (like BR did) is a scandalous waste of time and money and really ought to be scrapped.

(*Not to mention some on these forums.)

That's the problem I have here - people who want to know every single details about disruptions that personally affect them, yet keep complaining about the fact that the railway employs people to assess delays...

Personally, I'm not generally too fussed at the reasons for delays at the time, I'm more bothered about whether we expect this to be resolved in a few minutes or this means I am likely to have to change my travel plans (e.g. I'm going to miss my connection, I'm going to have to text people to tell them I'm going to be late) - the fact that there's a ten minute delay is important, but whether it was cows/ teenagers on the line or a delayed freight train ahead etc isn't as important to me. However, I appreciate that some people want an announcement every time the train is sat at a red signal and constant reassurances. It takes all sorts, and it's always going to be difficult for the on board staff/ station staff to know where to draw the line and what's "too much information" versus "keeping passengers in the dark". Some delays are common, but each delay is it's own unique snowflake, so it's not necessarily going to be simple to know what kind of delay the next one will be.

NR Kent and Sussex do good threads. Here's a recent one: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1394571511202201602

That's a very good thread, especially the way that they go on to explain the forthcoming nine day closure - i.e. lead the passengers through the problem and then get them to accept the need for the disruption (rather than the line being closed and the passengers being annoyed, without realising that this is necessary renewal to stop things like the recent disruptions) - good expectation management - get people to accept a little short term pain for long term gains etc

 

[Jim the Jim]

So, yes, I am very much in favour of accurate and reasonable detailed information being provided to passengers. Especially they should be told the actual location (including between which stations this affects), and not just “in the XYZ area” where the XYZ area is a large area.

So for example, if there is flooding at Cowley Bridge Junction, I would want the information to the passengers to say that due to flooding of the line at Cowley Bridge Junction, between Exeter St. David’s and Tiverton Parkway, trains between ... will be ... etc. Rather than the less than helpful “Due to flooding in the Exeter area trains may be delayed or cancelled”.

The degree of geographical precision may depend on how far away the disruption is. Passengers awaiting a train at Birmingham may be quite happy with "flooding in the Exeter area" rather than details about places they've never heard of.

 

[Horizon22]

That's a very good thread, especially the way that they go on to explain the forthcoming nine day closure - i.e. lead the passengers through the problem and then get them to accept the need for the disruption (rather than the line being closed and the passengers being annoyed, without realising that this is necessary renewal to stop things like the recent disruptions) - good expectation management - get people to accept a little short term pain for long term gains etc

Yeah they have an excellent comms team - they've really stepped up since May 2018 as there was a lot of criticism during that time on this route (although that was mainly TOC based). Arguably most severe disruption is due to an infrastructure or for a NR coded delay reason (fatalities for instance) so it makes sense that their Twitter feed picks up the long text "here's what happened" whilst TOCs try and keep it brief but clear and provide on the day details.

The degree of geographical precision may depend on how far away the disruption is. Passengers awaiting a train at Birmingham may be quite happy with "flooding in the Exeter area" rather than details about places they've never heard of.

I agree - there's a fine line between overly specific and using 'railway jargon' (I've heard "due to a track circuit failure on the Down Main" before...) and being overly vague. I think a general "area" is better or "between X and Y" (X&Y being major hubs) because otherwise it sounds too technical. But most of the time, the railway is too far the other away and extra detail can't hurt so long as its not rambling or nonsense.

That's why track circuit failures, axle counter failures, points failures are generally "a fault with the signalling system".

 

[Annetts key]

NR Kent and Sussex do good threads. Here's a recent one: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1394571511202201602

Yes, that’s helpful and very good.

The degree of geographical precision may depend on how far away the disruption is. Passengers awaiting a train at Birmingham may be quite happy with "flooding in the Exeter area" rather than details about places they've never heard of.

Of course any message has to be in context. But if you have a mix of unaffected services and services that are affected, the message should have enough information so that both sets of passengers understand the actual situation.

If the message is too generic, passengers that are on or due to travel on unaffected services will be alarmed, worried, etc. and may then take up time with the station staff, on board crew etc with questions, leaving them less time to deal with the passengers that are affected.

 

[181]

The degree of geographical precision may depend on how far away the disruption is. Passengers awaiting a train at Birmingham may be quite happy with "flooding in the Exeter area" rather than details about places they've never heard of.

Of course any message has to be in context. But if you have a mix of unaffected services and services that are affected, the message should have enough information so that both sets of passengers understand the actual situation.

In this case I would suggest something like 'just north of Exeter', so people whose destination is Exeter aren't left in doubt as to whether their journey is blocked.

 

[AlterEgo]

NR Kent and Sussex do good threads. Here's a recent one: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1394571511202201602

That’s good, but it doesn’t reach very many people. It’s mostly staff and enthusiasts who follow that account.

 

[Horizon22]

That’s good, but it doesn’t reach very many people. It’s mostly staff and enthusiasts who follow that account.

They tend to be retweeted by TOCs.

 

[Taunton]

It's long been a railway thing that, when any incident happens, although you may have orange-jacketed personnel coming out of your ears who are standing around at the site, there is apparently no budget for one information officer who knows how to do it at the centre.

Thus one gets the classic default "Services are subject to delay and/or cancellation and/or diversion".

One of the prime aims of delay attribution etc was it was seen as a means to encourage the rapid resolution of incidents, instead of leaving the disruption all day having had a signal failure etc first thing. Like many initiatives, it worked well at the start but gradually got watered down as various ways of gaming the system were worked out, some distinctly passenger-unfriendly such as suddenly running services non-stop to final destination. I guess it's time to have another go.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I'm not sure that Delay Attribution is that closely linked to real time communications. The apparent 'first cause' may be something to tell passengers (e.g. "points failure at X") but the real value of DA comes from discovering and capturing that the points 'failed' due to wind-blown debris, vandalism, lapsed/overdue maintenance, defective components, power supply problem, lightning strike or whatever.

That sort of thing is why 'the book' runs to 200 pages or whatever it is these days.

It is also helpful to know that even though the technical response on site may have been excellent (e.g. having a MOM on site to wind the points within a few minutes and technical teams to renew a defective component within half an hour) that the consequences of the incident were still causing delays at Birmingham New Street, Leeds or wherever several hours later. This helps to distinguish between the points failure at Bourne End on the Marlow branch and the otherwise similar one at Highbridge for example.

 

[Horizon22]

I'm not sure that Delay Attribution is that closely linked to real time communications. The apparent 'first cause' may be something to tell passengers (e.g. "points failure at X") but the real value of DA comes from discovering and capturing that the points 'failed' due to wind-blown debris, vandalism, lapsed/overdue maintenance, defective components, power supply problem, lightning strike or whatever.

That sort of thing is why 'the book' runs to 200 pages or whatever it is these days.

It is also helpful to know that even though the technical response on site may have been excellent (e.g. having a MOM on site to wind the points within a few minutes and technical teams to renew a defective component within half an hour) that the consequences of the incident were still causing delays at Birmingham New Street, Leeds or wherever several hours later. This helps to distinguish between the points failure at Bourne End on the Marlow branch and the otherwise similar one at Highbridge for example.

I'd argue that really DA looks at the impact of discovering that the points failed and the major benefit of showing how knock-on-delays accumulate where and when as you've said in your last para. Saying that I do think some Level 1 DA need more training as they do ask some questions of control staff which are very obvious and could clearly be realised very quickly.