Train crew persuade their Control to not terminate the train short

[462cd]

I've had a strange day on the rail network today: cancellations, delays, early terminations and even a disturbed man covered in blood walking along the tracks and then climbing into my carriage. But I thought I'd share a positive story...

Middlesbrough were playing away at Stoke City, so after the match an Avanti service from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester Piccadilly had quite a few Boro fans on-board. The crew noticed this, and made an announcement telling them what platform they had to get to at Piccadilly to catch the last direct train to Middlesbrough. At Stockport there was a delay of about 5 minutes. When we got moving, the announcement over the PA was something along the lines of:

"Sorry for the delay. The driver had to take an urgent call from headquarters who were telling him to terminate the service at Stockport. We refused, because we know that would mean Boro fans not being able to get home. We argued with them, and eventually they allowed us to continue to Manchester Piccadilly."

I know there have been a few threads recently about what the network can do to help passengers make their connections, and I thought that was a shining example of common sense customer service.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Fantastic- I love it when customer service and common sense prevail.

 

[Trackman]

I would say they challenged or try to reason rather than 'refuse' or 'argue'.
To carry on to Picc (if it was safe to do so) would have been to everyone's benefit rather than leaving people stranded.
I think they bigged the situation up, which is fair enough.

 

[class 9]

They obviously argued their point well, if Avanti control had said no, then that would be it, no go.

 

[godfreycomplex]

They obviously argued their point well, if Avanti control had said no, then that would be it, no go.

An understanding and empathy for what is actually happening on the ground is a basic requirement for even an average controller, as are the ability to entertain discussion, and react flexibly to events unfolding.

 

[AgentGemini]

Interesting story as similar happened on my trip to Telford from New Street about a week ago. The 1902 WMT departure from New Street to Shrewsbury is a strange maneouvre where it comes in from Shrewsbury as a 4 coach set (2 170s coupled up) and splits, for one two coach set 170 to then go back out as the 1902. Birmingham was super busy. The conductor/guard, already looking sorely harassed stepped down, saw the crowd struggling to jam into the front 2 coach 170 and just went "No."

He delayed the driver from uncoupling the two 170s and was making a series of phonecalls -from what I heard, to his control and managed to argue that the service was majorly overcrowded. He was able to secure the 1902 departure to remain both units (four coaches) and took them out with a satisifed, devious smile on his face. We were about six mins late but the relief of having four coaches was a big positive. Don't blame him!

 

[sd0733]

This happens fairly regularly, just is hidden from view most of the time. Quite often control will call and ask to do something or will ask how many people are on and where they are going if it's going to be better to carry on or spin round early.
Granted, sometimes decisions are made on a whim for reasons which are very strange but normally a lot more goes into these decisions than people realise or give credit for. On this occasion it sounds like the crew did the sensible thing, made the best of it and got everyone on board on their side.

 

[185]

...understanding and empathy for what is actually happening on the ground is a basic requirement for even an average controller, as are the ability to entertain discussion, and react flexibly to events unfolding...

I remember those days too, back in the nineties. Ah, wish it was like that nowadays

 

[jfowkes]

He delayed the driver from uncoupling the two 170s and was making a series of phonecalls -from what I heard, to his control and managed to argue that the service was majorly overcrowded. He was able to secure the 1902 departure to remain both units (four coaches) and took them out with a satisifed, devious smile on his face. We were about six mins late but the relief of having four coaches was a big positive. Don't blame him!

Recalling another recent thread, I wonder how much knock-on effect those six minutes of delay had on the rest of the network? How many people had missed connections?

Not a criticism of those particular staff members, just idly wondering.

 

[Wolfie]

I've had a strange day on the rail network today: cancellations, delays, early terminations and even a disturbed man covered in blood walking along the tracks and then climbing into my carriage. But I thought I'd share a positive story...

Middlesbrough were playing away at Stoke City, so after the match an Avanti service from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester Piccadilly had quite a few Boro fans on-board. The crew noticed this, and made an announcement telling them what platform they had to get to at Piccadilly to catch the last direct train to Middlesbrough. At Stockport there was a delay of about 5 minutes. When we got moving, the announcement over the PA was something along the lines of:

"Sorry for the delay. The driver had to take an urgent call from headquarters who were telling him to terminate the service at Stockport. We refused, because we know that would mean Boro fans not being able to get home. We argued with them, and eventually they allowed us to continue to Manchester Piccadilly."

I know there have been a few threads recently about what the network can do to help passengers make their connections, and I thought that was a shining example of common sense customer service.

Good to hear.

 

[Horizon22]

I would say they challenged or try to reason rather than 'refuse' or 'argue'.
To carry on to Picc (if it was safe to do so) would have been to everyone's benefit rather than leaving people stranded.
I think they bigged the situation up, which is fair enough.

I would agree. Ultimately decisions are made by Control but can be challenged, if circumstances on the ground are suitable (as they are here). Whilst Control has the big picture, the crew have the finer details. Sometimes they conflict, but normally a suitable resolution can be reached in good time. Most of the time you don't hear about this.

I liken it to a duck swimming in a pond (obviously severe disruption excepted); things can be going smoothly but there's always a bit of juggling going around to keep it that way. Trains don't just go from A to B and stop of course. They might go depot-A-B-A-C-A-D-depot. All actions have consequences to the next set of passengers - it is all about whether the alteration is justified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fantastic- I love it when customer service and common sense prevail.

I do too, but bringing your employer into disrepute isn't clever and I expect the crew are likely to now be subject to disciplinary action. This should and could have been put more generically i.e. "the driver had to take an urgent call from Control".

 

[Surreytraveller]

I do too, but bringing your employer into disrepute isn't clever and I expect the crew are likely to now be subject to disciplinary action. This should and could have been put more generically i.e. "the driver had to take an urgent call from Control".

I doubt anyone gives a monkeys how things are worded, as long as no swearing is involved

 

[Horizon22]

I do too, but bringing your employer into disrepute isn't clever and I expect the crew are likely to now be subject to disciplinary action. This should and could have been put more generically i.e. "the driver had to take an urgent call from Control".

Sincerely doubt it. A quick discussion about what happened with the driver manager. Explaining the delay will probably be the most difficult thing to attribution. Perhaps the guard didn't need to give the chapter and verse, but ultimately a resolution was reached.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt anyone gives a monkeys how things are worded, as long as no swearing is involved

Publically implying a lack of competence on the part of another part of the company you work for is not something that would be tolerated in most industries, and there was no need for it to be announced at all other than self glorification of the traincrew. The train was not terminated, ergo little more than an apology for the delay was needed.

Grossly unprofessional in my view.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would say they challenged or try to reason rather than 'refuse' or 'argue'.
To carry on to Picc (if it was safe to do so) would have been to everyone's benefit rather than leaving people stranded.
I think they bigged the situation up, which is fair enough.

Sometimes those conversations are arguments. Seems the right side won today.

I do too, but bringing your employer into disrepute isn't clever and I expect the crew are likely to now be subject to disciplinary action. This should and could have been put more generically i.e. "the driver had to take an urgent call from Control".

They wouldn’t be subject to disciplinary action, certainly not on the railway!

 

[Horizon22]

Publically implying a lack of competence on the part of another part of the company you work for is not something that would be tolerated in most industries, and there was no need for it to be announced at all other than self glorification of the traincrew. The train was not terminated, ergo little more than an apology for the delay was needed.

Grossly unprofessional in my view.

This is the only thing that is an issue - I do often get frustrated when railway staff start slagging off their own company (and Control is normally the focus!). People fail to appreciate the larger picture sometimes and don't like explaining bad news to passengers.

But I wouldn't call it "grossly unprofessional" and is worth just a quick chat.

 

[Wolfie]

Publically implying a lack of competence on the part of another part of the company you work for is not something that would be tolerated in most industries, and there was no need for it to be announced at all other than self glorification of the traincrew. The train was not terminated, ergo little more than an apology for the delay was needed.

Grossly unprofessional in my view.

Unbelievable. You are happy to defend passengers being abandoned by the railway and want disciplinary action taken against staff who put passengers first. Perverse priorities doesn't begin to describe it...

 

[Horizon22]

Unbelievable. You are happy to defend passengers being abandoned by the railway and want disciplinary action taken against staff who put passengers first. Perverse priorities doesn't begin to describe it...

To be fair I don't think @Bletchleyite wants that at all - he's happy with the discussion and resolution, more how the crew communicated the delay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair I don't think @Bletchleyite wants that at all - he's happy with the discussion and resolution, more how the crew communicated the delay.

Correct. The process by which it was established that the train would not terminate was an internal matter and not one that should have been relayed to passengers, certainly not in the critical "us v them" way it was.

It seems the termination was not announced, so nothing other than an apology for the short delay was needed. If they had announced a possible termination then something like "we are pleased to announce that this train will now continue to Manchester Piccadilly".

 

[ComUtoR]

Unbelievable. You are happy to defend passengers being abandoned by the railway and want disciplinary action taken against staff who put passengers first. Perverse priorities doesn't begin to describe it...

It's a matter of procedure and policy. If you bring the company into disrepute then you are liable for disciplinary action. Nothing is going to change that and it is a harsh reality of any working environment.

Staff need to deal with the reality of working on the front line on a day to day basis. Some decisions are going to be in direct conflict with company policy and some decisions will be in direct conflict with customer service. How those decisions are handled and dealt with are the crux of this entire debate.

Recalling another recent thread, I wonder how much knock-on effect those six minutes of delay had on the rest of the network? How many people had missed connections?

The company will see the wider picture. Personally I've made decisions either way. Sometimes I've outright refused something because I want to help my passengers and other times I've demanded a cancellation or a skip stop. Either way I'll get pulled into the office or needed to justify my position over an email etc. We only see a specific example but what if the decision to run the train did result in £250k in delay fines and 100+ passengers losing their connection or being delayed elsewhere ?

Control make decisions that we often don't understand or see the wider picture. 9/10 times I'm gonna fight for my passengers but I do appreciate that control should have the final say.

I've cost my company well over a million quid in delays and cancellations over the years. In a modern world where money is tight, is this still justified ?

 

[Trackman]

Correct. The process by which it was established that the train would not terminate was an internal matter and not one that should have been relayed to passengers, certainly not in the critical "us v them" way it was.

It seems the termination was not announced, so nothing other than an apology for the short delay was needed. If they had announced a possible termination then something like "we are pleased to announce that this train will now continue to Manchester Piccadilly".

This is spot on. A quick apology to say we will be moving soon, clear and concise without wittering on.

 

[londonbridge]

In one instance Sunderland had an away game at Portsmouth, on the way back there were delays to the extent that by the time they’d changed at Waterloo and made it to Kings Cross fans would have missed the last Newcastle train. Arrangements were made for an unscheduled stop at Vauxhall for them to hop the Victoria line and make the connection.

 

[david1212]

Recalling another recent thread, I wonder how much knock-on effect those six minutes of delay had on the rest of the network? How many people had missed connections?

Not a criticism of those particular staff members, just idly wondering.

Based on my experience of the most overcrowded train I have been on, excepting London underground when one line closed, by Shrewsbury the delay would have been less due to the length of each stop being shorter because if 2-car the length of time needed for passengers to get off then others waiting trying to squeeze on.

The train I refer to was a 2-car 158 split at Shrewsbury from a 4-car from Birmingham International that should have been to either Bangor or Holyhead ( I can't remember ) but from Real Time Trains terminated late at Chester. It is the only train I have been on where passengers have stood in the toilet.
The unit was sent back to Wrexham to clear at least some of the waiting passengers.
What happened to the passengers travelling west from Chester either already on the the train or intending to join there I have no idea.

 

[Falcon1200]

The driver had to take an urgent call from headquarters who were telling him to terminate the service at Stockport. We refused, because we know that would mean Boro fans not being able to get home.

As a matter of interest, do we know why the train was amended to terminate at Stockport ? Was it running extremely late and required to start a southbound service there, or did the set need to go to Longsight Depot for some reason ?

 

[muz379]

Publically implying a lack of competence on the part of another part of the company you work for is not something that would be tolerated in most industries, and there was no need for it to be announced at all other than self glorification of the traincrew. The train was not terminated, ergo little more than an apology for the delay was needed.

Grossly unprofessional in my view.

I think "Grossly unprofessional" is stretching it a bit , I read the OP to state only words along the lines of so its not a verbatim account . But even if it was , it probably is not the best statement sure , but also in the heat of the moment anticipating the chaos that would ensue terminating early with a large number of football fans who are then going to miss their last train its understandable why the delivery of a message might not have been spot on .

Disciplinary action would be a waste of everyones time in my view .

 

[plugwash]

I've cost my company well over a million quid in delays and cancellations over the years. In a modern world where money is tight, is this still justified ?

It's mostly "wooden dollars" now anyway.

 

[jamiearmley]

Interesting read! There's a lot of good points made in the thread.

For me, when i am dealing with a train full of passengers in a situation which could 'flash over' at any minute with very little provocation : such as i would imagine was the case on this train full of 'merry'football fans : then i can - and do - say anything and everything which gets the passengers on side. They need to know i am doing my best for them, that i am on their side, and that if they give me a little bit of time ill solve whatever the problem of the minute may be and get them where they need to go.

Unlike many of my colleagues, i am yet to have my train smashed up, have never had to summon assistance to deal with violence, have never been the victim of violence, and rarely am the cause of any delay.

I often take an 'you and me against the world' approach : it resonates with people, they can identify with it, especially when they are in drink. I don't disparage my employer : but then i don't think the crew did so in this instance.

It's easy to talk about the world in terms of 'should', and 'ought to'.

For me, the safety of my train, my passengers, and myself overrides any consideration of reputation.

Thankfully, both my line management and my hefty file of 'customer praise 'are in complete agreement!

 

[Meerkat]

Interesting read! There's a lot of good points made in the thread.

For me, when i am dealing with a train full of passengers in a situation which could 'flash over' at any minute with very little provocation : such as i would imagine was the case on this train full of 'merry'football fans : then i can - and do - say anything and everything which gets the passengers on side. They need to know i am doing my best for them, that i am on their side, and that if they give me a little bit of time ill solve whatever the problem of the minute may be and get them where they need to go.

Unlike many of my colleagues, i am yet to have my train smashed up, have never had to summon assistance to deal with violence, have never been the victim of violence, and rarely am the cause of any delay.

I often take an 'you and me against the world' approach : it resonates with people, they can identify with it, especially when they are in drink. I don't disparage my employer : but then i don't think the crew did so in this instance.

It's easy to talk about the world in terms of 'should', and 'ought to'.

For me, the safety of my train, my passengers, and myself overrides any consideration of reputation.

Thankfully, both my line management and my hefty file of 'customer praise 'are in complete agreement!

You can do that without using "refused" and "argued". If control overruled then you get a bit more leeway to protect yourself from the anger, but when control have agreed to what you and the passengers wanted its really poor form.
"Control asked us to terminate at Stoke, we explained how loads of you really need to get to Manchester and persuaded them to let us continue"

 

[jamiearmley]

You can do that without using "refused" and "argued". If control overruled then you get a bit more leeway to protect yourself from the anger, but when control have agreed to what you and the passengers wanted its really poor form.
"Control asked us to terminate at Stoke, we explained how loads of you really need to get to Manchester and persuaded them to let us continue"

Totally agree!