New Government research on disruption handling

[infobleep]

NRE will show the Darwin feed. In this instance the actual train running is showing the service is expected to be 1 minute late departing from the next station, however a staff member has intervened and told Darwin that they expect the service to leave the following station 10 minutes late, as a result you get what your screenshot shows.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was possible to amend it or not because in so many cases it never seems to be amended.

As it was the train was never 10 minutes late. At most, just 4 minutes at North Camp but one might not have expected that outcome when entering in 10 minutes.

Another example was on the train this evening. It was delayed due to signalling issues. The guard nicely apologised for the delay and said we'd be in, in 6 minutes. Now perhaps we would have been if we weren't then caught in the procession of trains into Waterloo. However, the guard never mentioned it again, as we slowed down further.

Of course, were I the guard, I might be just as optimistic.

It must also be said the first train to be diverted via Eastleigh was the 15:54 Fratton departure, yet a disruption notice didn't get created on National Rail Enquiries until 17:30.

That's quite a gap and disruption is to last all day. The delay is the sort of thing reforms need to speed up, if possible. I don't mean full details of the problem straight away but something brief sooner online than 94 minutes after the first train is diverted

 

[E759]

A new app covering corruption would be good, although as an enthusiast of timetabling, I do like being able to glean some details from the way the National Rail Enquiries app functions.

Today I saw a train from Havant to Bognor Regis was cancelled. The 14:21. However, when I went into it to see the details Bognor Regis wasn't even mentioned. I've not experienced this behaviour before.

I've attached two images showing this.
View attachment 97218View attachment 97219

Perhaps a perfect storm of the Sampton/Bognor train running from Bridge not Victoria due to the Blockade, the all to regular occurrence of "Signalling issues in the Barnham area" bringing the Arun Valley to a Stop and possibly the person entering these diverted trains into the system in a sub-optimal way! I don't know but have seen similar oddities in the NRE App around these weekend diversions.

As you say, only if you know (i) about the Victoria blockade, (ii) the Sampton trains have a Bognor portion splitting at Horsham and (iii) the reliability [sic] of the signalling system in the "Barnham area" could you make any sense of what the App was trying to tell you!

 

[AY1975]

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:


[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.

Some of the percentages in that document don't seem to add up. On p6 it says 95% of respondents rated the information given during disruption as negative and only 42% as positive, but 95+42 does not equal 100. I can only assume that this means some respondents gave both negative and positive comments?

Of those who rated the information provided as negative, 26% described it as insufficient, 19% unclear, 19% inadequate, 15% no information given, but 26+19+19+15 equals 79, not 95.

The percentages at the top of p6 shown in grey, green and pink circles also don't add up to 100%.

 

[RT4038]

Some of the percentages in that document don't seem to add up. On p6 it says 95% of respondents rated the information given during disruption as negative and only 42% as positive, but 95+42 does not equal 100. I can only assume that this means some respondents gave both negative and positive comments?

Of those who rated the information provided as negative, 26% described it as insufficient, 19% unclear, 19% inadequate, 15% no information given, but 26+19+19+15 equals 79, not 95.

The percentages at the top of p6 shown in grey, green and pink circles also don't add up to 100%.

Or that there was a 'Don't know' option?

 

[AY1975]

Or that there was a 'Don't know' option?

Even if there was, 95+42 still equals more than 100!

 

[Annetts key]

Even if there was, 95+42 still equals more than 100!

Maybe the don’t know was a negative figure

You will only find an answer if you find out (1) what the actual questions asked were, and (2) all the answers to those questions. Rather than a selection of answers and questions that have been picked out and used.

 

[JamesT]

Even if there was, 95+42 still equals more than 100!

Heading down to page 34 which appears to be a more expansive listing, there appear to be various different responses that could be given at the same time. So if someone said that the information was insufficient, but what was given was clear, then it will appear as both positive and negative responses.

 

[Wolfie]

Heading down to page 34 which appears to be a more expansive listing, there appear to be various different responses that could be given at the same time. So if someone said that the information was insufficient, but what was given was clear, then it will appear as both positive and negative responses.

Makes sense. Headlines vs granularity.

 

[Spartacus]

Makes sense. Headlines vs granularity.

Reminds me of when Virgin trumpeted how passengers loved their new Pendolinos and Voyagers by simply asking if passengers liked them or not. I did a similar survey at New Street and for similar figures, but then I also asked if passengers preferred the old or new trains (this being a while after the introduction so any reasonably frequent passenger would have had time to get used to the new stock). Virgin wouldn't have publicised those results which showed most preferred the old BR stock.