Terminology used - operational incident or train derailed

[infobleep]

This is a needy discussion, which in the grand scheme one might say does it really matter. It probably doesn't but I was interested anyway. When there is a train derailment, should train companies use the term operational incident or should they just say a train has derailed? I think they should say what it is, especially if it's viable from the railway line.

I appricate there are times when they don't want to state something but sure this is not one of those times.

Recently there was a derailment at Shrawberry Hill depot, used by South Western Railway, and it was referred to as an operational incident at all times, even though passengers could see it and had even photographed it. Passengers even referred to it in tweets to SWRs Twetter help but it wasn't referred to in anything I read from them. It may be company policy not to do so.

This was the case across the whole day. The next day there was an incident under investigation at Strawberry Hill. I read it wasn't the same as the previous day.

I thought OK so the train operating companies want to use operational incident then fair enough, although it did seem a bit futile, given passengers could see what it was.

However this morning Great Western Railway tweeted that there was a low speed derailment in Bristol depot. In this cade they didn't use the term operational incident. I don't know if this one was visible from the railway lines passengers use.

 

[Jonfun]

You've got to be careful when communicating with passengers not to use too much jargon, which is why a lot of TOCs fall back on the term "operational incident", which I personally dislike. It's also difficult to have every possible operating irregularity programmed into automatic announcement/PIS systems. In this case though, derailment is a term well understood by the majority of people so I don't think there's any reason not to use it where appropriate.

 

[OneOffDave]

Given the current woes on SWR, there seemed to be a lot of feeling among the travelling public that they were being actively misled rather than things being simplified so that non experts could understand, especially as pictures of the incident was all over social media

 

[Stigy]

You've got to be careful when communicating with passengers not to use too much jargon, which is why a lot of TOCs fall back on the term "operational incident", which I personally dislike. It's also difficult to have every possible operating irregularity programmed into automatic announcement/PIS systems. In this case though, derailment is a term well understood by the majority of people so I don't think there's any reason not to use it where appropriate.

As with all information which is relayed to customers, one has to be careful what is said specifically. For example, the term ‘derailment’ has potential to immediately get people thinking of major incidents such as Potter’s Bar or Hatfield. They can get around it by emphasising about ‘low speed’ or similar as GWR did, but the term ‘derailment’ always comes across dramatic.

Likewise the term ‘fatality’ is used less frequently in favour of ‘Emergency services dealing with an incident’. This is because historically the term “fatality” is obvious to everybody in terms of its meaning, and could a) cause alarm to those affected by an incident of a similar nature and b) highlight vulnerable areas where people might attempt future suicide bids. Using a generic term, although clear, isn’t specific to a fatality. Railway staff all know what it is, as do most frequent travellers, but the psychological aspect isn’t there.

 

[AlterEgo]

My views on the nondescript "operational incident" are well documented on here. I'm not a fan, and neither are most of the public. The public like transparency and accountability.

 

[OneOffDave]

As with all information which is relayed to customers, one has to be careful what is said specifically. For example, the term ‘derailment’ has potential to immediately get people thinking of major incidents such as Potter’s Bar or Hatfield. They can get around it by emphasising about ‘low speed’ or similar as GWR did, but the term ‘derailment’ always comes across dramatic.

With the previous two derailments that SWR had, they were much more up front about it and even posted pictures of the trains involved. Communicating with the public needs to remember that you are doing it for a number of reasons. As well as letting them know about disruption, you need to engender trust. Getting the travelling public onside makes life much much easier for front line staff and the comms teams for the TOCs have a massive influence there

 

[LowLevel]

On Sunday I was carrying passengers diverted due to the fire on the GC 180 at Horbury Jn. If I'm carrying another TOC's passengers I always welcome them on board, apologise to them on their TOC's behalf for the disruption and offer their delay repay details as a courtesy to make the railway seem a bit more like a team, particularly given they won't be able to speak to a rep from the original TOC given they're on my train. I phrased it as an empty train having been on fire causing delays which everyone seemed quite happy with *shrug*

I struggle most with what we internally would call safety incidents, signal passed at danger and the like. I don't want to cause the more nervous amongst the passengers to start thinking they're in a Ladbroke Grove style situation but they also have a right to know what is occurring.

 

[jamesst]

My toc has recently gone from describing a person under a train as an 'incident' to literally 'a person hit by a train'. Whilst some may not agree with me I do tend to believe that as long as you are using terminology passengers will understand it's better to describe it in that way.
However when it's due to an axle counter failure describing it as signalling problems is the way to go.

 

[Stigy]

My toc has recently gone from describing a person under a train as an 'incident' to literally 'a person hit by a train'. Whilst some may not agree with me I do tend to believe that as long as you are using terminology passengers will understand it's better to describe it in that way.
However when it's due to an axle counter failure describing it as signalling problems is the way to go.

My TOC used to do that. It’s not always about being clear with the customers to be honest in the case of fatalities, it’s often about mitigating against further fatalities.

 

[yorkie]

My views on the nondescript "operational incident" are well documented on here. I'm not a fan, and neither are most of the public. The public like transparency and accountability.

Agreed. It will also reduce speculation when vague terms are used.

On Sunday I was carrying passengers diverted due to the fire on the GC 180 at Horbury Jn. If I'm carrying another TOC's passengers I always welcome them on board, apologise to them on their TOC's behalf for the disruption and offer their delay repay details as a courtesy to make the railway seem a bit more like a team, particularly given they won't be able to speak to a rep from the original TOC given they're on my train. I phrased it as an empty train having been on fire causing delays which everyone seemed quite happy with *shrug*

I struggle most with what we internally would call safety incidents, signal passed at danger and the like. I don't want to cause the more nervous amongst the passengers to start thinking they're in a Ladbroke Grove style situation but they also have a right to know what is occurring.

I approve of this. We need more staff like this!!

 

[AM9]

The problem with giving detail on the type of cause is that apart from the minority who have an interest in railway operations, the majority of passengers really want to know how the problem will affect them. There is a risk that telling them about a derailment etc., might cause disbelief, especially where operations are complex and the cause might not be obviously affecting trains some distance from passengers. Too much information is as problematic as insufficient all too often. Detail when given is also often wrong, but at least 'operational difficulties' is usually factually correct.

 

[Llanigraham]

My views on the nondescript "operational incident" are well documented on here. I'm not a fan, and neither are most of the public. The public like transparency and accountability.

Really?
Most of the general public I know couldn't care less, and just want to know whether they are going to be delayed.

 

[Chris M]

Really?
Most of the general public I know couldn't care less, and just want to know whether they are going to be delayed.

I'm an off-and-on-again active member here and even I've lost count of the number of threads about this there have been on this forum. Each of them seem to come to the same impasse: Some people (mostly but not exclusively rail staff) arguing very passionately in favour of generic statements so as not to confuse people with unnecessary detail, and other people (mostly but not exclusively not rail staff) arguing equally passionately in favour of being given some basic details so they feel like they are being treated like intelligent adults who are being told truth and not kept in the dark.

In every instance when I as a traveller have experienced delays, the attitude from those around me who (by and large) are "normal" folk without any particular interest in railways has always been more positive towards rail staff and more forgiving of delays when given concrete information like "signal failure in the Cardiff area", "broken down freight train at Pilning" or even "we've stopped here [at West Drayton] while we are waiting for a fitter to arrive from Swindon to investigate a bit of metal making a lot of noise beneath coach C". When greeted with phrases like "operational incident" the attitude is generally less pleasant with phrases like "what are they hiding?" and "what does that actually really mean?" being significantly more common. However the key thing is that in my experience all the passengers who are happy with "Operational incident" are also happy with "knock-on delays after a road vehicle hit a bridge near Purley earlier" but only some of the passengers who will accept "a safety inspection of the track between Croydon and New Cross" regard "operational incident" as acceptable communication.

 

[pompeyfan]

Out of interest, how would the non railways staff on here like station overrun due to poor rail adhesion used in the public domain? It’s an operating incident after all.

Personally, operating incident refers to someone making a cock up, if it’s a technical spad, (SPAR) then it’s a signalling problem.

 

[Mag_seven]

At least the rail industry is generally more open about its delay reasons - If you fly all you tend to get is the totally meaningless "due to the late arrival of the incoming aircraft" excuse.

 

[infobleep]

Whilst I can't say if it's a policy decision of SWR, it flet like one as the same line was used all day regarding operational incident. If there was no policy I'd have expected someone to refer to it as multiple people will be meaning the Twitter help.

 

[infobleep]

Out of interest, how would the non railways staff on here like station overrun due to poor rail adhesion used in the public domain? It’s an operating incident after all.

Personally, operating incident refers to someone making a cock up, if it’s a technical spad, (SPAR) then it’s a signalling problem.

If the top one is known to be that then use it. I guess with a SPAR how soon would it be known its a signalling problem? If it's rather quickly then signalling problem seems good enough to me.

If you don't want someone at a station to be indirectly identified, prior to an investigation, then I guess operational incident might be acceptable.

 

[Bantamzen]

At least the rail industry is generally more open about its delay reasons - If you fly all you tend to get is the totally meaningless "due to the late arrival of the incoming aircraft" excuse.

To be fair to the airline industry, sometimes the reasons for delays can be complex such as change of flight plans due weather conditions, unexpected headwinds or turbulence etc, some of which might alarm the more nervous flyers before even boarding.

As for the topic in hand, I do prefer to have at least a little information on delays affecting me, as it does help me decide if alternative arrangements might be needed. For example if some wires are down I know it could be some time before things are moving, similarly with a derailment. Of course not all passengers are as aware how types of incidents might delay them, so if "operational reasons" becomes the preferred communicated reason, it should at least be followed with an ETA if available & if not let people know it may be some time before resolved.

 

[infobleep]

To be fair to the airline industry, sometimes the reasons for delays can be complex such as change of flight plans due weather conditions, unexpected headwinds or turbulence etc, some of which might alarm the more nervous flyers before even boarding.

As for the topic in hand, I do prefer to have at least a little information on delays affecting me, as it does help me decide if alternative arrangements might be needed. For example if some wires are down I know it could be some time before things are moving, similarly with a derailment. Of course not all passengers are as aware how types of incidents might delay them, so if "operational reasons" becomes the preferred communicated reason, it should at least be followed with an ETA if available & if not let people know it may be some time before resolved.

The issue with passengers not knowing how something will affect them can be seen by a recent signal failure at Weybridge. A disruption notice was put up against stations on that mainline.

However no disruption notice was put up against stations on the Guildford New Line, aka Cobham route, yet because of trains working both lines, passengers on parts of that route experienced gaps of an hour or so, as when a train is cancelled, it leads to such a thing. Now passengers wouldn't know that a train working up via Weybridge was due to head down via Cobham.

This shows how complex it all can be.

 

[Bantamzen]

The issue with passengers not knowing how something will affect them can be seen by a recent signal failure at Weybridge. A disruption notice was put up against stations on that mainline.

However no disruption notice was put up against stations on the Guildford New Line, aka Cobham route, yet because of trains working both lines, passengers on parts of that route experienced gaps of an hour or so, as when a train is cancelled, it leads to such a thing. Now passengers wouldn't know that a train working up via Weybridge was due to head down via Cobham.

This shows how complex it all can be.

Invariably there will be complexities, changing scenarios & operations which can all lead to comms breakdowns and confusions. This is as true of rail or air disruption, IT failures, power outages and so on. They key is for those on the ground to make best efforts to keep those affected in the loop, and where they have no information just to be honest and say they don't know but are trying to find out. Often someone just saying "I don't know exactly what's happening, but I'm on the case" can reassure most that information is on the way.

 

[RLBH]

In my (limited) experience, people are generally pretty understanding when they feel that they aren't being misled. Phrases like 'operational incident' sound like the operator is pulling the wool over their eyes. Whilst I can see the merit in 'emergency services dealing with an incident', that has the same problem.

Of course, excessive openness brings its' own problems. If the guard were to come over the public address system and state that the train was being cancelled at the next station due to a failure of the XYZ-123 module in the turboencabulator, I dare say that passengers would be rather unhappy. There's a balance to be struck: 'fault in the braking system' is probably a good level to pitch it at, 'train fault' is probably a bit too vague.

For comparison of other industries: I've had a bus delayed due to a broken fan belt (presumably if it had been a train, that would have been 'train fault') and a flight delayed because too much cargo had been loaded so the flight crew didn't know how much it weighed. If that had been a train it would have run anyway, or else fobbed off as an 'operational issue'.

 

[whhistle]

You've got to be careful when communicating with passengers not to use too much jargon, which is why a lot of TOCs fall back on the term "operational incident".

That isn't the reason they use "operational incident".
The term "operational incident" is all encompassing for many reasons. Some technical, yes, but others like "a derailment" would be easier to understand in the case highlighted by the OP.


Two train of thoughts here:

Alton Towers uses/d "technical difficulties" nearly all the time, to describe any sort of breakdown. It was easy and simply used as an excuse. Even when someone had been sick on a ride, some (staff) would call it a "technical difficulty".

Motorway signs never show "accident" anymore either.
Always "incident". Before, you could tell what the hold up was by how it was described, and thus enabled you to plan further. They're all just "incidents" now - even if it is an accident!

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm an off-and-on-again active member here and even I've lost count of the number of threads about this there have been on this forum. Each of them seem to come to the same impasse: Some people (mostly but not exclusively rail staff) arguing very passionately in favour of generic statements so as not to confuse people with unnecessary detail, and other people (mostly but not exclusively not rail staff) arguing equally passionately in favour of being given some basic details so they feel like they are being treated like intelligent adults who are being told truth and not kept in the dark.

Thank you for describing the situation so succinctly.

I used to be rail staff and I don't recognise the continuous insistence by other rail staff that all passengers want to know is how long the delay is, and no further basic information.

 

[RLBH]

Motorway signs never show "accident" anymore either.
Always "incident". Before, you could tell what the hold up was by how it was described, and thus enabled you to plan further. They're all just "incidents" now - even if it is an accident!

This is partly due to the road industry's asinine assertion that there is no such thing as an accident, because calling them accidents implies that tjey were unavoidable and nobody is at fault. When in fact an accident is simply an unexpected, unintentional event causing damage or injury.

Ironically, the rail, maritime and aviation industries do call them accidents, and have official bodies whose sole purpose is to investigate accidents and make recommendations about how to stop them happening. The road industry avoids calling them accidents, but neglects to find out how they happened much less do anything about it. Collisions, or incidents, or whatever else they decide to call them, are just something that happens. Blame the drivers and move on.

 

[sheff1]

At least the rail industry is generally more open about its delay reasons - If you fly all you tend to get is the totally meaningless "due to the late arrival of the incoming aircraft" excuse.

I see that 'excuse' as factual rather than meaningless. The same reason is often given on the railway at terminating/starting stations "train xxxx is delayed due to the late arrival of the incoming train".

 

[sheff1]

Out of interest, how would the non railways staff on here like station overrun due to poor rail adhesion used in the public domain? It’s an operating incident after all..

"Poor rail conditions caused by today's weather*" would cover it - no need to mention a station overrun in my view.

* Weather is the most likely reason. I know there are other possibilities on a fine day, e.g fuel spillage, which might not have been identified as the reason, in which case operating incident would probably have to do.

 

[Chris M]

Out of interest, how would the non railways staff on here like station overrun due to poor rail adhesion used in the public domain? It’s an operating incident after all.

"Poor rail conditions due to adverse weather", "slippery rails due to leaves on the line", "a fuel spillage on the track", etc, are all examples of how to give enough truthful information about the situation to ensure people are kept basically informed, and (importantly) feel like they are being kept truthfully informed while not panicking them or bamboozling people with unnecessary detail.

Generally if people know enough to say whether the reason is (primarily) related to one of the major components of running of railway and/or one of the widely understood things that can affect the running of the railway they will be much happier. Examples of such categories are: train, track, signals, passengers, weather/natural disaster (fire, flood, landslip, earthquake, tornado, etc), bridge strike, police request, staff problems (e.g. lack of staff), etc.

Ultimately it boils down to:
1. Be specific enough so that people know the general nature of the problem.
2. Be truthful.
3. Don't give the impression you are hiding things. "Operational incident" and similar meaningless phrases give the impression you are hiding things"
4. If you don't know, say you don't know. Say you are investigating or waiting for an update or trying to find out (whatever is truthful).
5. Say you will keep people updated, and then do so. If you haven't received any more information, then say that, but note you will keep trying to find out.
6. Be truthful
7. Don't give the impression you are hiding things. "Operational incident" and similar meaningless phrases give the impression you are hiding things"

 

[The North Briton]

‘A derailment within the depot’ and ‘a low speed derailment’ are both acceptable reasons in industry systems and, in my opinion, should be used when they accurately describe what has taken place.
‘An operational incident’ does have its uses, for example a TPWS activation or a dispatch irregularity, to name but two...

 

[infobleep]

This morning a train was cancelled due to the automatic application of the break. Another later was also delayed due to this. This is something that passengers wouldn't understand in terms of way it leads to a train being cancelled. Still it's probably preferable to operational incident.

Edit: actually they might understand it. The break shouldn't automatically be applied and if it is the train can't go.

 

[bb21]

Transparency is not absolute, and there is a balance to be struck. I am normally all for being open and providing as much context and detail to the travelling public as possible, however "derailment" is a strong word with very negative connotations and can cause unnecessary worry and panic amongst a quite significant minority of people so I do not feel describing the incident in this case as "derailment" is appropriate in public-facing messages when it is confined to within depot limits with no risk to the travelling public. If it had been a derailment on the running line then I think on balance it is in the public interest to call it as it is. We talk about being a more inclusive society, hence to me we should be sensitive to the needs of those people I described earlier. An incident at the depot due to an operating irregularity does not pass the public interest test imo. Anyone wishing to know more could always speak to a member of staff who should be empowered to make a professional judgement on how much detail to reveal on a case-by-case basis.

In those circumstances, what I do believe the industry can do better, is the information provision on the impact of such incidents such as stock shortage and travel disruption, which is the actual thing the vast majoroty of passengers are interested in.