"Operational Incident", Wembley Down Slow

[QueensCurve]

London Midland tweeted:-

Operational incident: Northbound 'fast' line currently blocked at #WembleyCentral. Congestion/delays possible on the one remaining line.Operational incident: Northbound 'fast' line currently blocked at #WembleyCentral. Congestion/delays possible on the one remaining line.

Earlier this afternoon. Does anyone know what happened?

https://twitter.com/LondonMidland/status/789104006442455040

The thread heading should of course have been down FAST.

 

[PHILIPE]

London Midland tweeted:-

Operational incident: Northbound 'fast' line currently blocked at #WembleyCentral. Congestion/delays possible on the one remaining line.Operational incident: Northbound 'fast' line currently blocked at #WembleyCentral. Congestion/delays possible on the one remaining line.

Earlier this afternoon. Does anyone know what happened?

https://twitter.com/LondonMidland/status/789104006442455040

The reasons are not put into the public domain. It could show up later after things died down and depending on what the incident

 

[Zoidberg]

London Midland tweeted at 16:01pm that

" the Virgin train blocking the line at Wembley Central is now on the move "

From https://mobile.twitter.com/LondonMidland/status/789119460984623105

 

[QueensCurve]

The reasons are not put into the public domain. It could show up later after things died down and depending on what the incident

That makes things clear.:roll:

 

[Minilad]

Anyone that needs to know will have access to the relevant information. Or will know where to go to find out. Anyone that doesn't really need to know won't.

 

[Zoidberg]

Anyone that needs to know will have access to the relevant information. Or will know where to go to find out. Anyone that doesn't really need to know won't.

I think that those whose travel plans were adversely affected by the incident would appreciate knowing the reason why. Does the railway really need to hide behind the words "Operating Incident"?

 

[Minilad]

I think that those whose travel plans were adversely affected by the incident would appreciate knowing the reason why. Does the railway really need to hide behind the words "Operating Incident"?

Why do they need to know the exact details other than that something happened that shouldn't have and processes have to be completed before things can get moving again.

 

[TheEdge]

I think that those whose travel plans were adversely affected by the incident would appreciate knowing the reason why. Does the railway really need to hide behind the words "Operating Incident"?

What will anything else tell you?

It was a SPAD. It was a SPAR. Wrong route. TPWS intervention. AWS activation. DSD activation. ADD activation. Hot box.

Thats just a tiny tiny amount of "operational incidents", it adds nothing apart from something for the voyeurs who want to know who is in trouble... :roll:

 

[greatkingrat]

An MP was on board the train and had the following Twitter exchange with Virgin.

‏@KeeleyMP - @VirginTrains the 14.40 from Euston to Mcr Piccadilly is stuck at Wembley Central with a fault. Very little info being given. Please help.

‏@VirginTrains - @KeeleyMP We are currently awaiting a relief driver and it will be on it's way, it may take around 20 minutes though. ^PA

@KeeleyMP - @VirginTrains why were we told it was a fault with the train? Which we were.

@VirginTrains - @KeeleyMP Originally we believed it to be a train fault but we are now awaiting a relief driver. %PA

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from SPADs what other types of "operational incident" would result in a driver being relived?

 

[GadgetMan]

Apart from SPADs what other types of "operational incident" would result in a driver being relived?

Near miss, signal reversion, tpws overspeed intervention, anything leaving the driver too shaken to safely continue driving.

 

[tellytype]

Sudden onset of some kind of illness? near miss? Almost any number of reasons why a driver might need to be switched

 

[TheEdge]

Apart from SPADs what other types of "operational incident" would result in a driver being relived?

TPWS activation is the only other one I can think of that would automatically result in it. Although it might have been a near miss or signal irregularity that has shaken up the driver and s/he has requested relief.

 

[Zoidberg]

Why do they need to know the exact details other than that something happened that shouldn't have and processes have to be completed before things can get moving again.

What will anything else tell you?

...

What's so wrong about expecting open and honest reasons for travel plans being disrupted?

 

[TheEdge]

What's so wrong about expecting open and honest reasons for travel plans being disrupted?

Why do you want to know? What does SPAD tell you that operation incident doesn't?

 

[dviner]

Near miss, signal reversion, tpws overspeed intervention, anything leaving the driver too shaken to safely continue driving.

Driver taken ill? I'd expect having a sudden nosebleed would be a bit too distracting...

 

[Lockwood]

Who to point the pitchforks and torches at!

 

[dviner]

Why do you want to know? What does SPAD tell you that operation incident doesn't?

Well, it's always a good starting point for the SPAD/SPAR discussions.

 

[TheEdge]

Who to point the pitchforks and torches at!

Exactly, be honest Zoidberg and tell us this isn't the basic reason...

 

[Minilad]

What's so wrong about expecting open and honest reasons for travel plans being disrupted?

Tell me what benefit would be gained from knowing the exact reason?

 

[Zoidberg]

Why do you want to know? What does SPAD tell you that operation incident doesn't?

I don't, particularly, want to know. I was not affected by it, but had I been I would not have appreciated the railway hiding behind weasel words in an attempt to explain the reason why my journey was being disrupted.

Neither would I have appreciated an explanation full of industry abbreviations.

 

[TheEdge]

I don't, particularly, want to know. I was not affected by it, but had I been I would not have appreciated the railway hiding behind weasel words in an attempt to explain the reason why my journey was being disrupted.

Neither would I have appreciated and explanation full of industry abbreviations.

Where are the weasel words? It was an incident to do with operational working. And how can more be added without adding industry terms?

 

[Minilad]

I don't, particularly, want to know. I was not affected by it, but had I been I would not have appreciated the railway hiding behind weasel words in an attempt to explain the reason why my journey was being disrupted.

Neither would I have appreciated an explanation full of industry abbreviations.

If a shop was shut due to "staff sickness" would you want to know exactly what was wrong with the person?

 

[Zoidberg]

Where are the weasel words? It was an incident to do with operational working. And how can more be added without adding industry terms?

I consider the use of the all-encompassing "operating incident" an attempt to weasel out of giving an open and honest explanation. And I do not object to the use of industry terms, just industry abbreviations when they are likely not to be understood by the intended audience (passengers). Such as a SPAD (which I had to look up) could be communicated in plain English.

There really is no need for the Secret Society mentality, but it looks like we will have to agree to differ.

 

[40129]

I'm not too sure that it would be a good idea to announce to passengers that trains are being delayed due to a signal being passed at danger

 

[Zoidberg]

If a shop was shut due to "staff sickness" would you want to know exactly what was wrong with the person?

No, the reason given there is sufficiently specific, there is no hiding behind such as "Closed due to not being open".

Anyway, as I said in a post earlier, it looks like we'll have to agree to differ about what information is given to passengers concerning disruptions to their journeys.

 

[TheEdge]

There really is no need for the Secret Society mentality, but it looks like we will have to agree to differ.

Are you being serious? There is no secret mentality but its just utterly pointless adding more. Your average passenger doesn't even listen to what the railways tell them already, adding more stuff is pointless.

Worked examples.

Operation Incident vs Signal Passed at Danger. But you could claim that's a coverall as there is significant difference between passed at danger and passed at red. So now our poor announcer needs to explain the difference between a signal passed at danger and one passed at red. But was it passed at danger due to driver error or train fault or wheel slip? Does a TOC want to publically blame a driver when it turns out it was a train fault?

Operational Incident vs TPWS invention. Again, was it an intervention or activation? They are two similar but different things. Was it due to the wrong brake setting on the loco? Was it a faulty magnet. Was it an overspeed or stop loop? Again, is the TOC going to openly blame the driver when it may not, after investigation have been them?

Do you see my point that as soon as we add even just a bit of detail it can get very silly at is utterly pointless for the purpose of passenger information?

 

[40129]

Closed due to not being open would be more like the announcements used by LT: Delays due to late running and extended intervals, i.e. delays due to delays

 

[Marklund]

Operational Incident vs TPWS invention.

Was it a faulty magnet.

TPWS haven't got magnets

Do you see my point that as soon as we add even just a bit of detail it can get very silly at is utterly pointless for the purpose of passenger information?

Agreed. Same with the Twitterati demanding to know from TOCs what caused the signal failure.
It makes no difference if the relay contact has gone High Resistance, or a rodent has eaten a cable. The Signal is failed, that's all that's needed.

 

[Zoidberg]

Are you being serious? There is no secret mentality but its just utterly pointless adding more. Your average passenger doesn't even listen to what the railways tell them already, adding more stuff is pointless.

Worked examples.

Operation Incident vs Signal Passed at Danger. But you could claim that's a coverall as there is significant difference between passed at danger and passed at red. So now our poor announcer needs to explain the difference between a signal passed at danger and one passed at red. But was it passed at danger due to driver error or train fault or wheel slip? Does a TOC want to publically blame a driver when it turns out it was a train fault?

Operational Incident vs TPWS invention. Again, was it an intervention or activation? They are two similar but different things. Was it due to the wrong brake setting on the loco? Was it a faulty magnet. Was it an overspeed or stop loop? Again, is the TOC going to openly blame the driver when it may not, after investigation have been them?

Do you see my point that as soon as we add even just a bit of detail it can get very silly at is utterly pointless for the purpose of passenger information?

I certainly would not want any announcement to be made which apportioned blame.

For the two examples you gave, something like "A safety mechanism brought the train to a halt and there will be a delay while the cause is investigated and any remedial action necessary is taken" or "A safety warning caused the driver to halt the train, etc" would be more helpful than "Operating incident".