Terminology used - operational incident or train derailed

[tsr]

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!

I’ve seen them show “Accident” occasionally in recent years. The digital pictogram symbol used for some of the incident signs on smart motorways is also a picture of an upside-down car...

 

[Re 4/4]

I personally don't see how "due to an operational incident" adds any value for the average traveller. If you do want a policy where you have to give a reason in every delay message, you might as well put something slightly more meaningful in there.

 

[sheff1]

An incident at the depot due to an operating irregularity does not pass the public interest test imo.

As others have said "‘A derailment within the depot" explains the issue and should be no cause for alarm. What would you announce instead to explain the delay ?

 

[bb21]

Why do the details even need to be announced? It is an incident at a depot. Announcing as such should more than suffice. Most passengers will understand that an incident at a depot is likely to result in some form of disruption.

I already explained why it would be cause for alarm amongst some people. People who do not suffer panic attacks don't always understand how easy it is to trigger something like that, just like how it managed to surprise me when it happened to someone who sat opposite me on a journey and we proceeded to have a long discussion about it.

 

[Chris M]

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.

"A fault with the train"/"A fault on an earlier train" would cover this adequately. If you have an option to give more details for those interested in them (e.g. on a website) then something like "a safety system designed to apply the brake in an emergency operated when it shouldn't have done." would convey everything that is needed.

Years ago (in the days of Wessex Trains) I was on 150 from Yatton to Bristol Temple Meads where the emergency brake would randomly apply every couple of minutes. I don't remember the exact words but the driver told us exactly what was happening, that they didn't know why, and that he was keeping the speed down so that nobody got hurt when it applied. There was some grumbling about being late for work (it was a morning commuter train) but (afaict) everyone on the busy train was happy with the explanation, understood what it meant, and nobody was panicked or upset or anything like that.

 

[sheff1]

Why do the details even need to be announced? It is an incident at a depot. Announcing as such should more than suffice.

"Incident at the depot" is meaningless - is the depot on fire ? have protesters chained themselves to the tracks/trains ? No, there has been a minor derailment.

Most passengers will understand that an incident at a depot is likely to result in some form of disruption.

Well yes but, as you said yourself, what passengers want to know is how badly, or otherwise, the disruption might affect their journey. A minor derailment slowing exit from the depot is likely to mean a train will arrive reasonably soon; a derailment blocking all exit from the depot or protesters/fire will almost certainly mean a longer delay so, unless a estimate of the clearance time can be given, taking alternative travel options (if available) may be a good idea.

I am pleased that GWR, at least, think it is sensible to announce details of a minor depot derailment.

 

[bb21]

"Incident at the depot" is meaningless - is the depot on fire ? have protesters chained themselves to the tracks/trains ? No, there has been a minor derailment.

Well yes but, as you said yourself, what passengers want to know is how badly, or otherwise, the disruption might affect their journey. A minor derailment slowing exit from the depot is likely to mean a train will arrive reasonably soon; a derailment blocking all exit from the depot or protesters/fire will almost certainly mean a longer delay so, unless a estimate of the clearance time can be given, taking alternative travel options (if available) may be a good idea.

I am pleased that GWR, at least, think it is sensible to announce details of a minor depot derailment.

"A minor derailment" by itself isn't going to tell anyone how big a problem is likely to be. It could be a 5-minute delay due to overcrowding, or could be a 40-minute delay because the unit was trapped behind and had to exit the depot in the opposite direction. As I alluded to earlier, communicating clearly to the passengers what sort of disruption to expect is a whole separate issue and cannot be masked under the provision of delay reasons alone. What is a "minor derailment" anyway? Is it blocking one road or two roads? How many units are trapped on that one road or two roads? How many crews are conveyed on those services who are then scheduled to work other services?

The whole point about being specific isn't so much about communicating extent of disruption, but rather in the name of transparency. That as I mentioned earlier has a balance to be struck. Reasons announced or not, the extent of delay still needed to be communicated separately in most cases, even if just confirming minor/moderate/severe delay, as inferences cannot always be drawn correctly.

 

[OneOffDave]

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.

With this one, part of the problem was that the public could see it was a derailment and it was fairly obvious so any terming it an "operating incident" makes it look like an attempt to conceal the true nature of the problem. it makes the public less likely to believe the TOC in the future

 

[bb21]

With this one, part of the problem was that the public could see it was a derailment and it was fairly obvious so any terming it an "operating incident" makes it look like an attempt to conceal the true nature of the problem. it makes the public less likely to believe the TOC in the future

TBH I don't really know what the best answer is, or even if one exists. We are now at such an age that information is consumed quickly and crudely, but the industry as a whole has been slow to react. It also doesn't help that there is so much distrust in the railways by the general public (or indeed any long-term establishment), as you rightly pointed out, thanks in part to the industry's own fault and in part to irresponsible sensationalist reporting in the press. The distrust just magnifies everything multiple times, assisted by gradually polarising public opinion (which is of course amplified again on a forum like this).

 

[bb21]

Forgot to mention earlier, I agree that because of what is available on the web almost in real time these days, you do have to choose your words carefully, absolutely. It is not lying to be vague in a general mass audience announcement, especially if there were good reasons to do so, however to avoid giving the impression of such, especially in the current climate, the words chosen do have to convey a sense of being reasonably specific. Exactly where this balance is may depend on the exact circumstance however I do agree that the term "operational incident" is best avoided. As I mentioned earlier, people interested in specific details can always dig around for them or ask staff and those not interested or would rather avoid can do so too.

I do also think more work could be done to explain to the general public where such announcements need to be vague and the reasons behind them as part of a wider educational programme. I think some people pointed out earlier that the public appreciate the difficulties with these things sometimes and would mostly be understanding if treated frankly and as intelligent beings, so communication about the reasons why things like these are done in specific ways plays a very important role imo in rebuilding that trust.

 

[_toommm_]

I was caught in the track circuit failure at Guide Bridge this Friday just gone, and what was nice was that the guard and driver actually took the time to explain what that meant in terms of why it meant we couldn't move forward, and why it was best for us to wait at a station as opposed to going further down the line and getting stuck in the middle of nowhere.

They were both fresh with their explanations when everyone invariably queued up to ask the same questions, and were really nice about it. We were 55 down by the end of it, but it was incredibly refreshing to have someone explain to non-enthusiasts (regulars) what was happening in Plain English. That, IMO, is how it should be done.

 

[Re 4/4]

I heartily agree with the last couple of posts.

Some time ago I was on a Wales to Paddington train when there was a signal problem somewhere on the line. The driver stopped, told us it would be several minutes before we got going, and explained what had happened and why it takes to long to take a train past a failed signal. I really appreciated that.

 

[OneOffDave]

SWR have been at it again today saying the delays and skipped stops at Clapham Junction were caused by an operational incident when it was the passenger flows going to Castle Carey for Glastonbury that caused it as they stated later. Almost like Glasto caught them by surprise

 

[XC victim]

To be honest I see no reason why passengers need to know the precise details of any disruption, delays or cancellations. This is especially true when there has been a serious incident with injuries or fatalities.

Surely generic reasons such as;
Operating incident
Signalling fault
Staff Shortage
Rolling Stock shortage
Emergency services dealing with an incident
Etc
Cover the situation adequately. We can assume that the operator is trying to run the service they advertised, so wanting any other more detailed information is just nosyness, and not helpful

 

[pompeyfan]

SWR have been at it again today saying the delays and skipped stops at Clapham Junction were caused by an operational incident when it was the passenger flows going to Castle Carey for Glastonbury that caused it as they stated later. Almost like Glasto caught them by surprise

There’s a little bit more to the story than that, pax had to be de-trained at Clapham during the morning peak which then caused delays to down trains.

 

[Taunton]

I find PHBT an unfortunate expression. I prefer "police incident" and "serious police incident".

I do notice that if it's another TOC then it's no holds barred. "Freight traiin derailment" appears regularly.

A generation back the Solari departure boards at the main London termini used to have on the penultimate line "due to", and then on the last line all the "excuses", as they were affectionately known. When the boards cycled through them all it often raised a laugh - "Fog - Staff shortage - Late running - flooding ". They were the inspiration for all the Reginald Perrin comedy TV programme ones delivered straight-faced

http://www.leonardrossiter.com/reginaldperrin/Train.html

"Escaped puma Chessington North" was my favourite.

 

[father_jack]

There’s a little bit more to the story than that, pax had to be de-trained at Clapham during the morning peak which then caused delays to down trains.

It got worse later when it was discovered that some genius in SWT strengthened the extra trains 3 cars to 6 cars which don't fit into platform 3 at Cary. Snarled up the whole place as the platforms were massively overcrowded.

 

[pompeyfan]

It got worse later when it was discovered that some genius in SWT strengthened the extra trains 3 cars to 6 cars which don't fit into platform 3 at Cary. Snarled up the whole place as the platforms were massively overcrowded.

Didn’t realise Cary couldn’t take 6? Are the main platforms longer than the loop then? How many coaches used to get released on a HST?

 

[OneOffDave]

There’s a little bit more to the story than that, pax had to be de-trained at Clapham during the morning peak which then caused delays to down trains.

Was this a planned process? Did someone suddenly arrange a large popular music festival in the west of England and forget to tell SWR?

 

[pompeyfan]

Was this a planned process? Did someone suddenly arrange a large popular music festival in the west of England and forget to tell SWR?

Can only assume it caught them by surprise to the extent of passengers travelling via Salisbury. I think this is the first year that all XX:50 departures from Waterloo have extended to Cary instead of terminating at Salisbury so it was very much a learning curve

 

[Dieseldriver]

Didn’t realise Cary couldn’t take 6? Are the main platforms longer than the loop then? How many coaches used to get released on a HST?

Platform 3 at Castle Cary is only just long enough to accommodate a 3 car 158. The other two platforms would easily accommodate a 6 car 158.

 

[Taunton]

Didn’t realise Cary couldn’t take 6? Are the main platforms longer than the loop then? How many coaches used to get released on a HST?

The Down "back platform" at Cary, platform 3, can only accommodeat a few cars. It only leads to the Weymouth line. The other side of the island, the Down Main, can take a full length train. It leads to both the Weymouth and the WofE Main lines. If a train longer than the normal minimalist formation is headed for the Weymouth line it would have to be advised to the signaller to ensure it used the main platform.

Now in bad old WR days Bruton I bet would have been given a special bell code for "Train for Weymouth line longer than 4 cars" to send on to Cary. Of course, in the Super 21st Century nobody thinks of this issue. Even at Glasto time.

 

[infobleep]

There’s a little bit more to the story than that, pax had to be de-trained at Clapham during the morning peak which then caused delays to down trains.

What was the reason for the detraining? That definitely wasn't mentioned on Twitter but maybe that is considered too much information.

 

[infobleep]

Can only assume it caught them by surprise to the extent of passengers travelling via Salisbury. I think this is the first year that all XX:50 departures from Waterloo have extended to Cary instead of terminating at Salisbury so it was very much a learning curve

This explains why it occurred. I hadn't realised they had been extended. I may well have read it though, and promptly forgotten what I read.