'Due to emergency services dealing with an incident'

[DarloRich]

This can happen, and of course will be an issue when it does, but it doesn't usually happen, so I ask you, is it better to **** people off at every incident, or only the 1 in 10 where it gets much worse than normal?

I certainly accept that outwardly similar incidents can take varying amounts of time to clear, but if you can look a little more in depth at the incidents then you will see that certain assumptions can be made.

As a daily traveller on the GEML for over 15 years and someone who worked there for several years (and had access to the performance data) I know that the vast majority of "person on the line incidents" happen in the Romford area. So does the operator, NR and BTP and they've actually got reasonably consistent in the amount of time it takes to clear the incident.

Of course if the incident took place somewhere else then they might not be able to make a good estimate, but for 90% of these incidents if you say 1.5-2 hours you'll be in the right ball park. I know that and act accordingly. I think it would be helpful if all passengers had that information. Don't you?

I do - to a point.

The "informed friend" can make sensible decisions based both on this information and personal experience. Many people are unable/unwilling to do that and become obstreperous when things don't go their way or the way they think has been advertised.

My issue (from my limited time "on the ground") are the problems faced by staff in dealing with people when the delay escalates beyond the advertised period. I have seen the end results of staff being abused/assaulted by people because the delay was longer than advertised. They shouldn't have to face that.

Therefore unless there is a high level of confidence behind the delay estimation I would be cautious about giving any such estimation.

 

[HH]

People who become obstreperous will become obstreperous whatever you do, in my experience...

 

[edwin_m]

Down here in Brighton, we got the 'emergency services dealing with an incident' message for the same thing. This was at the same time as recovering from flood damage and staff shortages. Glad I was walking out the door at the time.

Luton at 2120-2200 was announcing "emergency services dealing with a prior incident" - which I thought was "fire incident" from their PA until I saw the text on one of the displays. During the same time period the computer was regularly apologising for delays to random Thameslink trains from up to eight hours earlier, so I presume it had taken that long to get things up and running again. Perfect example of how these systems fall flat in a major incident and how not to keep the customer happy!

EMT website, however, stated "person hit by train". National Rail gave the emergency services line I think, but then linked to the Twitter feed where someone had posted what they actually thought had happened.

 

[PHILIPE]

It makes me wonder why TOCs are so reluctant in some cases to give out details. As it was, the line was closed through Heath H.L. for a while today due to above reason and no further details. I will splash the reason now as the Media (Wales On Line Website) have put it in the public domain and reported that the body of a man had been found on tracks. News such as this will make the headlines even if the TOC don't want you to know.
Obviously sympathies with man's family.

 

[Llanigraham]

BTP Twitter feed mentioned the body at Heath High Level.

 

[PHILIPE]

BTP Twitter feed mentioned the body at Heath High Level.

But not ATWs.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

EMT's twitter feed will say "hit by train" but onboard crew use "incident further up the line". Saying that, I travelled some months ago on a STP - EMP service where we were held at Bedford for 90 mins. After about four or five minutes, the train manager used the odd term of "unauthorised person/train interaction" which I said was a "one under". The person concerned was very much dead as he'd been hit by a 222 at Kettering at full line speed - and they recovered the body to the station platform just as we were pulling in. My first and so far only one under incident in 22 years of railway travel

 

[PHILIPE]

I have come across this rather interesting document on a Forum from Passenger Focus re info given out:-

SWT Twitter feed referred an enquirer to this piece of research by Transport Focus:-

http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/communicating-suicides-on-the-railway

recommending a change in terminology to 'emergency services dealing with an incident'.

Seems very sensible and more sensitive to me although I am sure the reader will still understand what has happened. However on Journey Check the incident in question was still referred to as 'Due to a person hit by a train'.

 

[Starmill]

I personally don't think there need be a trade-off between dealing appropriately and sensitively with fatalities and minimising actual disruption felt by passengers.

There's no direct need to inform of a person hit by a train.

 

[FordFocus]

Unfortunately people getting hit by a train is a fact of life. It's not hidden by the media nor is it a taboo to say. I still announce incidents as a person hit by a train as it can sort of give a timeline of how long the train will be at a stand and it's enough information for passengers. Emergency services dealing with an incident is too broad, it can be anywhere between a copper looking for a trespasser but giving up after 10 minutes to a stand off on a signalling gantry for over 5 hours. Passengers want to know what the problem is and how long it will take.

One thing that won't be announced is how said person came into contact with a train.

 

[SPADTrap]

how long it will take.

If you can answer that during an incident you're better than I am!

 

[455driver]

If you can answer that during an incident you're better than I am!

If its somebody hit by a train then it is obviously going to take some time to scrape them up, if its the Police looking for some scrote it should only take a few minutes.

That is what fordfocus is on about, not giving the exact time!

 

[swt_passenger]

I have come across this rather interesting document on a Forum from Passenger Focus re info given out:-

SWT Twitter feed referred an enquirer to this piece of research by Transport Focus:-

http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/communicating-suicides-on-the-railway

recommending a change in terminology to 'emergency services dealing with an incident'.

Seems very sensible and more sensitive to me although I am sure the reader will still understand what has happened. However on Journey Check the incident in question was still referred to as 'Due to a person hit by a train'.

This was also linked to earlier in the thread, post #26, you must have missed it t the time.

 

[PHILIPE]

This was also linked to earlier in the thread, post #26, you must have missed it t the time.

Correct. Missed it. Sometimes when a lengthy thread gets post after post I'm inclined to skip through because sometimes the same things get repeated.