Would it be useful if multiple reasons for delays could be entered?

[infobleep]

The 07.34 South Bermondsey to Wimbledon was delayed today due to slippery rails. The 08.04 Wimbledon to London Bridge, which it forms, was delayed due to overrunning engineering works.

Now it's possible for the 08.04 to have been delayed by slippery rails, given the service that forms it was. However it is highly unlikely the 07.34 wasn't delayed by overrunning engineering works, if the 08.04 was.

Most likely is that both reasons are true assuming one wasn't entered in error or with incorrect info. However it wasn't updated so I'll assume both are true.

Given that a lot of passengers might think they are just making up excuses, given the differing reasons, should they implement a system where by multiple reasons for delays can be given or would that be too complicated?

At least at the station today they didn't state the reason for the 08.04 delay, so unless passengers went onto National Rail Enquiries App or Web Site, they wouldn't know of the difference. They weren't able to update the PIS to remove the cancelled stops but they at least were able to make manual and the correct automated announcements about the removed stops. They were very good with the manual announcements today.

I appreciate sometimes there might be five things that delayed a train but in such cases they could use the term multiple reasons if it gets too many. What this would try to avoid is different reasons being given at different times when both are correct all of the time.

That way maybe less passengers would say they are just making up excuses.

 

[The Planner]

But surely if the 8.04 is formed by the 7.34 then the 8.04 is delayed by the adhesion problems of the inbound working so the attribution is correct.

 

[Chris M]

Except the attribution for the delay to the 8:04 was "overrunning engineering works" not adhesion issues, while the 7:34 was, according to the attribution, delayed by adhesion issues but not overrunning engineering works.
@infobleep's speculation is that both services were delays for both reasons, but that the current system is unable to show this.
Where multiple reasons are given for the same delay, the perception of some passengers is that 'the railway' are lying and haven't got their story straight - even if both reasons are true.
Say for example a train is delayed due to a single failure and during that delay a passenger is taken ill due to overheating. The reason for this train's late running could be attributed to a "signal failure" or "passenger taken ill" - both are correct. However if National Rail say "signal failure" and the TOC says "passenger taken ill" (because only one reason can be given) then someone hearing both sources of information is likely to say "make up your minds!" at least and may not believe either. However if both NR and the TOC said "signal failure and then passenger taken ill" the message would be no more or less truthful but there would be no inconsistency and it would less scope for disbelief. There is a limit to how much information can be conveyed realistically but no limit to how long a list of reasons can be (passenger ill on a train that was already delayed due to both overrunning engineering work to fix a track fault causing signalling problems and adhesion issues caused a knock-on delay to the following service which meant the train crew was out of place...) so if this was implemented there would need to be a "too many issues to list" option - although probably better would be "train delayed on it's inbound journey due to signal failure, passenger taken ill and other issues" (known informally as an "up the wall" code I suspect!).

There are clear benefits to having such a system in my opinion (and presumably the OP's opinion) but would there be any drawbacks? If so how significant and could they be mitigated? How much time effort and money would it take to change? Is that worth it?

 

[bb21]

The 0804 is now correctly attributed to the delay on the inbound. It may have been incorrect in the first place, but it is now correct.

It is impossible to insist on 100% correct attribution in the first place, given the extent of delays during leaffall periods.

 

[Highlandspring]

Chris M - You're talking about how delays are announced to the public by TOCs. Within the rail industry the Delay Attribution Board publish clear guidelines about how complex delays with multiple causes should be split and attributed in accordance with an agreed industry standard.

More generally, people who try to second guess delay attribution simply by listening to announcements and/or looking at Real Time Trains rather than the detailed TDA information available internally are not best placed to make judgements on how said attribution has come about.

 

[Clip]

Given that a lot of passengers might think they are just making up excuses, given the differing reasons, should they implement a system where by multiple reasons for delays can be given or would that be too complicated?

.

How many passengers would look at both trains though to find out that there is a difference in delay attribution?

 

[IanXC]

However if National Rail say "signal failure" and the TOC says "passenger taken ill" (because only one reason can be given) then someone hearing both sources of information is likely to say "make up your minds!" at least and may not believe either. However if both NR and the TOC said "signal failure and then passenger taken ill" the message would be no more or less truthful but there would be no inconsistency and it would less scope for disbelief.

National Rail and the TOC cannot say different things, as the TOC are responsible for assigning a delay reason to public facing systems, and that his then displayed by not only that TOCs systems, but other TOCs systems and National Rail sources too.

The Darwin system will allow for a delay reason to be assigned to a service and for a cancellation reason to be assigned, so in your example it could say 'this service has been delayed by a problem with the signalling system' and also 'this service has been cancelled by a passenger being taken ill' (for instance if it was subsequently terminated short of its destination or had stops cancelled to run fast).

What is always true is that each service can only have one delay reason and one cancellation reason.

 

[Chris M]

The 0804 is now correctly attributed to the delay on the inbound. It may have been incorrect in the first place, but it is now correct.
It is impossible to insist on 100% correct attribution in the first place, given the extent of delays during leaffall periods.

You're missing the point - this is not about incorrect attribution, it's about confusion caused when there are multiple correct attributions but where the message announced is not consistent.

How many passengers would look at both trains though to find out that there is a difference in delay attribution?

I don't think anyone other than a staff member or enthusiast would do that, hence my main point was about delays to the same service being announced differently. It is very common for passengers to look for info in multiple places - TOC websites, on-board/on-station announcements, NR website, Real Time Trains, Twitter, etc. and if one of those says reason X and another says reason Y, it's perfectly natural to want to know why they are different. Some people will assume that it is due to reason X and reason Y, but many are just confused and some see it as the railway not telling the truth (even though they are). On longer distance services, its sometimes the case that the reason given for late running changes (sometimes this is because problems compound, e.g. currently stuck behind a slower train approaching Birmingham because the train was delayed due to signalling problems in the Bristol area, but not always). It's also not uncommon to hear different reasons at different stations on London Underground - the other day at Tottenham Court Road I heard the Piccadilly line delays were due to a track fault in the South Kensington Area, but at Bank they were due to signalling problems at Acton Town (I believe that both were causing problems).

 

[Chris M]

National Rail and the TOC cannot say different things, as the TOC are responsible for assigning a delay reason to public facing systems, and that his then displayed by not only that TOCs systems, but other TOCs systems and National Rail sources too.

That doesn't stop things like twitter feeds and prose updates from differing.[

What is always true is that each service can only have one delay reason and one cancellation reason.

Currently. My understanding of the OP's point was to ask the question "Should multiple reasons be possible?", not enquire whether it currently is.

 

[IanXC]

That doesn't stop things like twitter feeds and prose updates from differing.[

Currently. My understanding of the OP's point was to ask the question "Should multiple reasons be possible?", not enquire whether it currently is.

As I understand it the OP was arguing that, because different sources can show different reasons, systems should be amended so that more than one reason can be shown. I was pointing out that for a vast amount of sources it isn't even possible for systems to show different reasons in the first place.

 

[Frontera2]

The other thing you need to bear in mind is that CIS systems ( currently ) can only have one reason per train. Given that they are all fed by Darwin, if you had multiple reasons in there you still wouldn't have both reasons at the station.

Now that's not to say that these systems can't be updated, but this would be at considerable cost and I don't think TOCs would pay for it given it's a "fringe" benefit.

 

[Chris M]

Just today I've had first hand experience of multiple reasons given on the same journey.

I travelled from King's Cross to Leeds. We left London on time, but arrived late into Peterborough "due to signalling problems in the Biggleswade area" according to the person making the on-train announcements.
When we were arriving into Leeds the same person made an announcement giving the cause as "we were following something from Doncaster" (my partner commented that she hoped it was the rails).

 

[infobleep]

The 0804 is now correctly attributed to the delay on the inbound. It may have been incorrect in the first place, but it is now correct.

It is impossible to insist on 100% correct attribution in the first place, given the extent of delays during leaffall periods.

If one was simply wrong, bearing in mind nothing can ever be perfect, then that's fair enough in this case. However there are times when multiple reasons are the cause.

 

[infobleep]

National Rail and the TOC cannot say different things, as the TOC are responsible for assigning a delay reason to public facing systems, and that his then displayed by not only that TOCs systems, but other TOCs systems and National Rail sources too.

The Darwin system will allow for a delay reason to be assigned to a service and for a cancellation reason to be assigned, so in your example it could say 'this service has been delayed by a problem with the signalling system' and also 'this service has been cancelled by a passenger being taken ill' (for instance if it was subsequently terminated short of its destination or had stops cancelled to run fast).

What is always true is that each service can only have one delay reason and one cancellation reason.

So does the National Rail Enquires App randomly choose whether to show a delay reason or cancellation reason when a train is both delayed and had some of it's stops cancelled or does a human decide which of those should be used? I'm talking about on the train running times page for a particular service.

When it says cancelled it doesn't say cancelled for some stops but cancelled as if it's cancelled throughout, when it isn't.

 

[infobleep]

As I understand it the OP was arguing that, because different sources can show different reasons, systems should be amended so that more than one reason can be shown. I was pointing out that for a vast amount of sources it isn't even possible for systems to show different reasons in the first place.

My question was essentially should something be done, given the reasons I stated be done or is it not worth doing?

It's not can they do it right now because it seemed clear to be they couldn't.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Depends on how interested customers are in that information really do we want to overload customers and add to the continuous announcements.

Most customers quite rightly only care about getting to A to B on time and their train turning up knowing the reason for the delay in most cases isn’t going to make the fact the trains cancelled any better

 

[MG11]

I think we currently have the right balance i.e. signalling problem, trespass, a passenger being taken ill. Passengers don't need or care for full details i.e. track circuit failure or axlebox failure. Just breif explanations will do with additional advice to help customers complete their journey.

 

[Frontera2]

I think we currently have the right balance i.e. signalling problem, trespass, a passenger being taken ill. Passengers don't need or care for full details i.e. track circuit failure or axlebox failure. Just breif explanations will do with additional advice to help customers complete their journey.

I totally agree, but try telling that to SWR who seem to delight in using phrases such as "Track circuit failure" in their public facing messages these days.

 

[306024]

It’s probably only enthusiasts that are interested enough to want to get to the bottom of any delay. Poor railhead conditions causing a track circuit failure causing severe delay and overcrowding causing a passenger to be taken ill on a previous journey is probably a bit too much information, and won’t lessen any delay.

 

[Parallel]

"Your attention please, we're sorry that the 14:26 service to Cardiff Central has been delayed by 58 minutes. This is due to electrical supply problems, a train fault, signalling problems, disruptive passengers, a person hit by a train, a wartime bomb near the railway, flooding and a member of train crew being unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you."

I am glad we have delay reasons. I think one/the main reason is fine in most cases, unless it's a severe delay (45+ mins) and two reasons would be okay, but not essential. (I.e. An earlier train fault & poor weather conditions)