So many announcements, so few people taking them on board

[davews]

Not saying everyone listens but one issue on SWR is that the manual PA's on a lot of the 455/458 fleet cab be inaudible. In particular a lot of 458's seem to have a problem with the microphone as the auto announcements are perfect but then you'll only get every 2nd or 3rd word of a manual one.

On one occasion, I think on a 458, they decided to skip stations after we had boarded the train at Waterloo. The guard came on after we left presumably telling us what was happening but nobody at all in our carriage could hear a word of what he was saying. We all looked at each other with 'what was all that about' faces...... Realised something was happening when we shot through Clapham Junction, every other station and were rerouted via the Hounslow loop. Eventually we stopped at Staines! I jumped off and asked the guard what the situation was, having a moan at the PA system, and he assured me they would be now stopping at every station. Bunch of others getting off and moaning they would have to take a train back the other way.

Yes, they need to address that.

 

[Recessio]

There must be some kind of scientific evidence that people become immune to messages when they are heard too many times.

In cybersecurity it's been found that if you have too strict/onerous requirements, it actually leads to less security because people will bypass them due to the inconvenience. For an example from the civil service, if you have ten different systems you need to access, and they each need a unique password, people will end up writing the ten passwords down on post-it notes kept with their laptops (that they then accidentally leave on a train!) So actually it can be more secure to have one strong password shared among systems, which the user commits to memory (or uses to secure a password vault for the ten systems).

I've always wondered if the same principle applies to announcements: would they actually get the message across to passengers better with fewer announcements, as it means people will be more likely to listen, rather than just tune it out and become immune as you say?

 

[ainsworth74]

ok - how do you mitigate the case brought by the person who injures themselves by slipping on the ice they didn't know about? You cant say thought you shouldn't be so stupid sadly.

You cant also say you SHOULD be allowed to say that!

I don't know? My whole point was that I'm not sure that this should be the way it works should someone who slips on ice when the weather forecast is for ice, when the weather is obviously frozen be able to sue just because there wasn't a PA announcement saying "surfaces may be slippery"? If the company in question failed to grit the surface or put down de-icer or similar then that would clearly be a relevant failure on the companies part to do their job and should give grounds for a potential claim. But not having a PA saying "you know how it's cold outside today what with you being outside and it being cold and you're wearing a hat and scarf? Well funny story there's a chance that surfaces could be slippery so watch out!" is actually useful in any meaningful way so why should the absence of such a message make someone liable for a slip?

As I say, an actual failure to take reasonable care by preparing surfaces for slippery conditions by not gritting, for instance, absolutely that should bring some potential liability for any accident. I fully appreciate that that is the current legal position but I don't think that just because something is true now means that it must always be true and we can't take a more measured view as to whether this is a sensible way to proceed. Especially as it's always possible that with some research we might discover something like...

I've always wondered if the same principle applies to announcements: would they actually get the message across to passengers better with fewer announcements, as it means people will be more likely to listen, rather than just tune it out and become immune as you say?

...might be the case. It seems me to that some research into whether these announcements are actually effective and if a reduction may yield benefits greater than those achieved by ticking a box on the risk assessment.

 

[DarloRich]

My whole point was that I'm not sure that this should be the way it works should someone who slips on ice when the weather forecast is for ice, when the weather is obviously frozen be able to sue just because there wasn't a PA announcement saying "surfaces may be slippery"?

it isn't JUST because there are no announcements. It is one of the things that will be looked at. As you say the lack of gritting would be more powerful in the decision making process.

 

[ainsworth74]

it isn't JUST because there are no announcements. It is one of the things that will be looked at. As you say the lack of gritting would be more powerful in the decision making process.

Sure but in the present way of operating there will be a PA announcement because that box needs to be ticked even though there's no evidence that it will actually do anything to reduce the risk of a slip. Unlike gritting which there is powerful evidence for.

 

[DarloRich]

Sure but in the present way of operating there will be a PA announcement because that box needs to be ticked even though there's no evidence that it will actually do anything to reduce the risk of a slip.

it isn't designed to reduce the risk of accident - it is designed to reduce the risk of pay out AFTER the accident (Cynical?)

 

[ainsworth74]

it isn't designed to reduce the risk of accident - it is designed to reduce the risk of pay out AFTER the accident (Cynical?)

Yes quite! That's the bit I'm suggesting might need some sort of reconsideration!

If something has no real world impact why should it effect the liability of a pay out following a real world accident? Seems barmy to me.

 

[DarloRich]

If something has no real world impact why should it effect the liability of a pay out following a real world accident?

it is a cheap and easy swiss cheese hole blocking defence.

 

[ainsworth74]

it is a cheap and easy swiss cheese hole blocking defence.

I feel we might be going in circles here! I don't dispute why it happens, we do performative risk assessment and mitigation at my place of work for the same reason that the railway does dubious PAs, my point is simply I'm not sure that the legal rules around liability for things like slipping on a platform should go so far as to make it possible for someone to bring a successful claim, hence the desire to employ a swiss cheese defence, if there wasn't sufficient warning due to the lack of a PA saying that its slippy today.

 

[mike57]

In cybersecurity it's been found that if you have too strict/onerous requirements, it actually leads to less security because people will bypass them due to the inconvenience. For an example from the civil service, if you have ten different systems you need to access, and they each need a unique password, people will end up writing the ten passwords down on post-it notes kept with their laptops (that they then accidentally leave on a train!) So actually it can be more secure to have one strong password shared among systems, which the user commits to memory (or uses to secure a password vault for the ten systems).

I've always wondered if the same principle applies to announcements: would they actually get the message across to passengers better with fewer announcements, as it means people will be more likely to listen, rather than just tune it out and become immune as you say?

I think a proper human factor assessment should highlight this, in our industry you wont pass go with out it, there have been too many incidents in the past where failure to take human factors into account is a contributry factor to incidents.

Human factors encompasses everything in the human interface with systems, not just screen and equipment design, which needs to be consistent and follow established guidelines, but also environment, and things like information overload. One of the tests we have to carry out is to check that an alarm flood doesn't occur during a major incident. Audible alarms must be capable of being silenced. The most serious stuff must be presented ahead of the less serious.

I think its fair to say that any independent assessment would identify that the current flood of announcements on some trains is counter productive, and that vital announcements could be missed. How many people tune them out with headphones/earbuds, of the rest how many actually listen. Do some tests asking random passengers what the last announcement was. As mentioned above wrt to passwords, more is not always better. I still strongly maintain that annoiuncements should be restriced to things of immediate concern, with everything else relegated to a screen if the box tickers fell that we need to be told that rain is wet, ice is slippery, there are gaps between the train and platform edges, and its a good idea to take all your bags with you.

Reading some of the comments here it appears human factors assessments are less onerous in the rail industry, as issues have been highlighted which would require remediation in other industries.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure that the legal rules around liability for things like slipping on a platform should go so far as to make it possible for someone to bring a successful claim, hence the desire to employ a swiss cheese defence, if there wasn't sufficient warning due to the lack of a PA saying that its slippy today.

Agreed about circling - I will simply say I doubt a successful claim could be brought solely on the basis of the lack of announcements. it is one of the chain of contributory if things to be looked at. Any solicitor is going to ask about it, especially if they know you have not made the announcements!

The law in this regard hasn't changed for a long time. What has changed is the ability of normal people to seek redress.

 

[ainsworth74]

The law in this regard hasn't changed for a long time.

Perhaps it's time it should

What has changed is the ability of normal people to seek redress.

And a good thing that is too even if it has enabled some silliness like the silly announcements!

 

[Fermiboson]

I think it does not help that the quality, volume and clarity of announcements vary so hugely between trains and operators. Two (somewhat humourous) examples below:

One day (think it was the night after the Hook and Winchfield landslide) I was at Waterloo, waiting on the first carriage of the 2108(?) local stopping service to Guildford. The driver was just getting on and having a chat with the commuters, and was in the process of opening the door to the driver cabin when the fire alarm suddenly sounded. The driver went back out of the driver cabin and announced loudly to the cabin, "You're under me, stay on the train. I'll see if I can get you out of here." However, as he had not used the train PA system, nobody in the rear carriages heard anything at all, and as the driver went off to check with control, a considerable part of the other three carriages emptied out and headed for the barriers as platform staff were directing people still on the platforms to do. In the end, it transpired to be a fire alarm drill, and the driver came back in and pulled out about five or six minutes late. I'm fairly certain however, given the time elapsed between the fire alarm stopping and the train pulling out, that not everyone emptying out in the confusion managed to get back on the train. (There were also several who could not tap in at the barriers as they were opened during the fire alarm, but luckily the guard was understanding.)

Another time I was on an EMR service out of Bedford to Sheffield. Announcements were not frequent, but the audio in the cabin was very inconsistent, leading to about 90% of the message being blocked off, but the remaining 10% being played clearly at a loud volume. It did not help that the driver had quite a strong accent. Just before the call at Kettering, the driver made a manual announcement which I assume was intended to be along the lines of "The next stop is Kettering. This train will be calling at Kettering, Leicester, Sileby, Loughborough, etc. etc" but due to the variable audio, what we heard was "Next stop... Loughborough". Upon hearing this, a man jumped up in panic, hurriedly gathered up his luggage and belongings just in time as the train stopped, and shot off the train. Having dropped his coat in the hurry, he spent some time putting it back on, then started to walk down the platform. About 15 seconds before the train was due to depart, he apparently finally noticed which station he was at, visibly exclaimed in terror and rushed for the train doors, which closed in his face. The train pulled out of the station leisurely, leaving the poor man staring at us forlornly.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

So which announcements so you cut?

Essentially train announcements fall into three categories: Things you need to know, things you already know and things you don’t need to know. So keep announcements that fall into the first category and get rid of those in the latter two.

To use my local company Northern as an example…

Things you need to know

“This train is the xx:xx to A, calling at B, C, D….etc.”
Obviously most passengers will know this but it can be useful if you’re rushing for the train at the last minute or you have two trains going to the same place; one slow, one fast - e.g. Sheffield trains leaving platform 17 at Leeds.


Things you already know

“Smoking or vaping is not permitted on this train”
The smoking ban on trains was introduced in 2007, surely after 17 years everyone has heard about it?

“You need a valid ticket to travel on this train or you may face a penalty fine of £100”
Yes, everyone knows you need a ticket to travel on a train. You might get the odd fare dodger playing dumb but fare dodgers wouldn’t take any notice of the announcement anyway.

“We are now approaching B, if you are leaving the train please mind the gap, between the train, and the platform edge”
That gap’s been there ever since the station opened decades ago. Unless you’re getting off a train for the first time, everyone knows about it! Just tell us the station we’re about to arrive at.


Things you don’t need to know

“Please read the safety information notices on this train”
Nope, no need, the chances of being involved in an emergency are remote and even if it did happen, train crew would be around to advise the best course of action.

“See it say it sort it”
No, as stated earlier, anyone desperate to contact the BTP can simply google their contact details.



So there you have it; four announcements scrapped, one shortened and one retained. A more peaceful journey for everyone!

 

[43066]

Firstly, if by that 'tiny stratum' you mean visually impaired people, then there is a legal as well as moral responsibility to pay particular attention to their needs and make reasonable adjustments. Secondly, plenty of other passengers would find it helpful to know which side doors will open on. Look at many arriving trains, with passengers clustering towards doors on both sides, unsure which set of doors will open.

Reasonable adjustments don’t need to include adding yet another unnecessary announcement, which the posters on this thread would no doubt complain about. The vast majority of people seem to cope just fine with working out which side of the train the platform is on.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Things you already know



“You need a valid ticket to travel on this train or you may face a penalty fine of £100”

Completely pointless announcement. If it needs to be made to make the fine enfoprceable, it has to be done before the passenger enters the train.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Essentially train announcements fall into three categories: Things you need to know, things you already know and things you don’t need to know. So keep announcements that fall into the first category and get rid of those in the latter two.

To use my local company Northern as an example…

Things you need to know

“This train is the xx:xx to A, calling at B, C, D….etc.”
Obviously most passengers will know this but it can be useful if you’re rushing for the train at the last minute or you have two trains going to the same place; one slow, one fast - e.g. Sheffield trains leaving platform 17 at Leeds.


Things you already know

“Smoking or vaping is not permitted on this train”
The smoking ban on trains was introduced in 2007, surely after 17 years everyone has heard about it?

“You need a valid ticket to travel on this train or you may face a penalty fine of £100”
Yes, everyone knows you need a ticket to travel on a train. You might get the odd fare dodger playing dumb but fare dodgers wouldn’t take any notice of the announcement anyway.

“We are now approaching B, if you are leaving the train please mind the gap, between the train, and the platform edge”
That gap’s been there ever since the station opened decades ago. Unless you’re getting off a train for the first time, everyone knows about it! Just tell us the station we’re about to arrive at.


Things you don’t need to know

“Please read the safety information notices on this train”
Nope, no need, the chances of being involved in an emergency are remote and even if it did happen, train crew would be around to advise the best course of action.

“See it say it sort it”
No, as stated earlier, anyone desperate to contact the BTP can simply google their contact details.



So there you have it; four announcements scrapped, one shortened and one retained. A more peaceful journey for everyone!

Absolutly, but I was responding to the comment about the number of announcements on the Trent Valley line, all of the ones I stated fall into the first category. Personally I very rarely make announcements in the other 2 categories.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Reasonable adjustments don’t need to include adding yet another unnecessary announcement, which the posters on this thread would no doubt complain about. The vast majority of people seem to cope just fine with working out which side of the train the platform is on.

Reasonable adjustments means facilitating things for those who are not in the vast majority. Reasonable means not making it worse (which includes making it prohibitively expensive) for everyone else.

 

[Fermiboson]

Most metro services include an announcement of which side the doors are going to open. I don't see why intercity trains should be any different.

 

[Bow Fell]

Like it or not, the “See it, say it, sorted” announcements aren’t going anywhere and people can moan until they are blue in the face.

They are one of the most annoying announcements for staff too!

Specified by the DfT and an integral part of “Transec”

If there was a DfT/Transec inspection onboard a train and the guard didn’t make a manual announcement, then this was count as a mark against the TOC.

Similarly at a station and depending on the station classification they would expect these announcements going out and going out at a specified frequency.

 

[sh24]

Part of the issue is verbosity - a simple "next station - Clapham Junction" is enough. Not "I'm delighted to announce that our next station stop will Clapham Junction where you can change for Hogwarts via Timbuktu".

 

[norbitonflyer]

how do people manage in an open plan office if they cant cope with a few announcements? Near me I can hear at least 6 different conversations yet I am still able to concentrate on this thread while I have a tea break?

I found it extremely difficult. You get distracted by other people's phone conversations (which always seem more interesting than what you are supposed to be reading.........). I resorted to having my headphones on all the time. (it can also make you circumspect about what you are saying on the phone, especially when dealing with personnel issues, or "pay and rations".

 

[Jamesrob637]

Who's going to take notice of "has been cancelled due to... silence" such that a few of us have heard, when they can't even make up a reasonable and valid reason/excuse? They'll just claim their delay repay and possibly never use the railway again! Mind you, I guess that is passively taking notice.

 

[talldave]

Part of the issue is verbosity - a simple "next station - Clapham Junction" is enough. Not "I'm delighted to announce that our next station stop will Clapham Junction where you can change for Hogwarts via Timbuktu".

Agree, although the brevity of Elizabeth line "next stop" announcements annoys me!! As does Thameslink's "doors will open automatically at the next station" when they mean "this" station!!

I'm all for killing the "if you see anything suspicious" et al dross.

 

[mike57]

I found it extremely difficult. You get distracted by other people's phone conversations (which always seem more interesting than what you are supposed to be reading.........). I resorted to having my headphones on all the time. (it can also make you circumspect about what you are saying on the phone, especially when dealing with personnel issues, or "pay and rations".

I also used headphones, it also helps with my tinitus to have some music playing quietly anyway. I think the majority of users dislike open plan offices for all sorts of reasons, but bean counters like them because they are cheap and easy to reconfigure. One big advantage of WFH for a lot of people is that you configure an environment that suits you. In my working life I have been fortunate to only have to endure open plan for about 5 years out of the last 20 years. What the bean counters fail to appreciate is that a poor working environment brings its own hidden costs.

 

[Russel]

So which announcements so you cut?

Personally, I'll cull all the manual announcements and leave it to the train.

For stations with short platforms, play an auto announcement in the rear portion only, maybe play it twice if needed.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Personally, I'll cull all the manual announcements and leave it to the train.

For stations with short platforms, play an auto announcement in the rear portion only, maybe play it twice if needed.

Whilst generally in favour, like most here, of reducing the number of announcements I think this is an example of where the staff aren't just repeating what the automated system would say, but are (in my experience) often doing it better.

The example in my mind are the WMT senior conductors working a 350 with two different sets, where I have heard them say eg:

"At x station you need to be in the first 4 carriages of the train, these are the ones with the green seats. If you're in a carriage with blue seats you need to walk through the train, through the narrow corridor in the middle, to the area with the green seats."

I always thought using a description of what the units look like to help the passengers understand what part of the train they need to be in was a great idea. You hear a few of them doing it, or doing similar, and I think this is an example of where the human really does trump the automation.

 

[Russel]

Whilst generally in favour, like most here, of reducing the number of announcements I think this is an example of where the staff aren't just repeating what the automated system would say, but are (in my experience) often doing it better.

The example in my mind are the WMT senior conductors working a 350 with two different sets, where I have heard them say eg:

"At x station you need to be in the first 4 carriages of the train, these are the ones with the green seats. If you're in a carriage with blue seats you need to walk through the train, through the narrow corridor in the middle, to the area with the green seats."

I always thought using a description of what the units look like to help the passengers understand what part of the train they need to be in was a great idea. You hear a few of them doing it, or doing similar, and I think this is an example of where the human really does trump the automation.

I've heard this too, but I still don't think it's needed and indeed, when the 730s enter service, won't be possible anyway.

All that is needed is an auto announcement in the part of the train that'll be off the platform telling passengers to move forward, which already happens.

 

[py_megapixel]

“Please read the safety information notices on this train”
Nope, no need, the chances of being involved in an emergency are remote and even if it did happen, train crew would be around to advise the best course of action.

Has anyone here ever read those notices as a result of an announcement telling them to?

In fact, it would probably cause a crowd control problem if a significant number of people did, since they're usually either directly above the doorways or crammed away in a corner somewhere.

 

[TUC]

I don't know? My whole point was that I'm not sure that this should be the way it works should someone who slips on ice when the weather forecast is for ice, when the weather is obviously frozen be able to sue just because there wasn't a PA announcement saying "surfaces may be slippery"? If the company in question failed to grit the surface or put down de-icer or similar then that would clearly be a relevant failure on the companies part to do their job and should give grounds for a potential claim. But not having a PA saying "you know how it's cold outside today what with you being outside and it being cold and you're wearing a hat and scarf? Well funny story there's a chance that surfaces could be slippery so watch out!" is actually useful in any meaningful way so why should the absence of such a message make someone liable for a slip?

As I say, an actual failure to take reasonable care by preparing surfaces for slippery conditions by not gritting, for instance, absolutely that should bring some potential liability for any accident. I fully appreciate that that is the current legal position but I don't think that just because something is true now means that it must always be true and we can't take a more measured view as to whether this is a sensible way to proceed. Especially as it's always possible that with some research we might discover something like...

...might be the case. It seems me to that some research into whether these announcements are actually effective and if a reduction may yield benefits greater than those achieved by ticking a box on the risk assessment.

One thing is for sure, we know that anyone who makes a claim purely from a slip on a perfectly flat wet platform or pavement is on the make rather than genuinely having a legitimate grievance.

Like it or not, the “See it, say it, sorted” announcements aren’t going anywhere and people can moan until they are blue in the face.

They are one of the most annoying announcements for staff too!

Specified by the DfT and an integral part of “Transec”

If there was a DfT/Transec inspection onboard a train and the guard didn’t make a manual announcement, then this was count as a mark against the TOC.

Similarly at a station and depending on the station classification they would expect these announcements going out and going out at a specified frequency.

So the DfT aren't interested in public opinion and minor issues like being accountable?