This is what gets the current rail system a bad name

[Bletchleyite]

In this example, perhaps 3 minutes. In other places 3 minutes would cause carnage to the timetable. The issue is that the 3 minutes would still need to be attributed somewhere for delay reasons. Whether you think that is right or wrong is a different matter, but it would probably be attributed to "waiting connections - not authorised" or "authorised outside connectional policy" (reference). That would then need to be explained and would cost some 'money'. Utlimately no bother if the train has no other interchanges and reaches its destination on time (as it may well have done here), but that can't be guranteed.

And that is where it is time to ask - does that attribution directly benefit the passenger or the freight customer?

The modern railway has all sorts of internal contractual stuff that is just a waste of money and doesn't sit on the critical path to "punctually and safely moving people and stuff", which is the purpose of the railway. Things that don't directly support delivering the railway's fundamental purpose need simplifying out, particularly where (as in this case) they directly negatively impact that purpose.

Asking a guard to explain a one-off 5 minute delay is an utter waste of everyone's time. But if you get a 5 minute delay on that train at that station 5 days out of 7, or if one member of staff is involved in a disproportionately large number of delays than others*, then it is time to do some root cause analysis and fix the problem (such as faulty timetables). Obviously, just like other ITIL* stuff, the threshold to trigger root cause analysis can change as appropriate, but doing RCA on a one-off incident** is just a waste of time.


* Information Technology Infrastructure Library, a set of standard processes used in most IT Service Management contexts - my job, and something I increasingly become convinced can be applied in principle to almost any context of "stuff" happening to "stuff".

** One of the recent episodes of Signals to Danger highlighted a case where a driver had had multiple SPADs, but it took a very near miss which was investigated by the RAIB to find the root cause - his suffering from obstructive sleep apnoea, and thus effectively being half-asleep on the job over a prolonged period.

 

[Taunton]

What are the actual procedures given for when there are passengers obviously making for a train? What is actually trained?

One reason I ask this is from an incident on my nearby DLR; when the automated Ready for Departure tone went, and the train Passenger Service Agent (alias guard) instantly hit the door close. There was a pram already being manipulated through a doorway at the time, baby inside, which the doors closed on, compressing the flexible body until they hit the frame, and the mother had a panic fit - which one can understand.

The DLR recruitment page says : "We encourage all our staff to 'think like a customer' and put them first ...".

hireful.

keolisameydlr.livevacancies.co.uk

But I am also aware that the fully automated nature of the DLR reports to "the client", that is TfL, any departure which is more than 30 seconds late (I am reminded of this by the 30 seconds discussion above). Desperation for punctuality statistics (they get posted up on DLR stations periodically to show how wonderful they are) means this comes through in the training that the train MUST depart the moment the automated system says.

 

[underbank]

The modern railway has all sorts of internal contractual stuff that is just a waste of money and doesn't sit on the critical path to "punctually and safely moving people and stuff", which is the purpose of the railway. Things that don't directly support delivering the railway's fundamental purpose need simplifying out, particularly where (as in this case) they directly negatively impact that purpose.

It sounds very similar to the NHS with an artificial/internal market that sometimes creates unnecessary complication and negative outcomes. Created with the best of intentions but maybe a lack of critical thinking as to the "unforeseen" consequences which are often entirely foreseeable but simply ignored.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It sounds very similar to the NHS with an artificial/internal market that sometimes creates unnecessary complication and negative outcomes. Created with the best of intentions but maybe a lack of critical thinking as to the "unforeseen" consequences which are often entirely foreseeable but simply ignored.

It is very similar to the NHS in a lot of ways, yes. The way the NHS operates, much as it's fixed me a number of times over the past few years for the princely sum of nowt at the point of use (and that is a wonderful thing that needs protecting), is hugely frustrating as it operates in silos with no view of how things affect other things.

 

[Horizon22]

And that is where it is time to ask - does that attribution directly benefit the passenger or the freight customer?

The modern railway has all sorts of internal contractual stuff that is just a waste of money and doesn't sit on the critical path to "punctually and safely moving people and stuff", which is the purpose of the railway. Things that don't directly support delivering the railway's fundamental purpose need simplifying out, particularly where (as in this case) they directly negatively impact that purpose.

Asking a guard to explain a one-off 5 minute delay is an utter waste of everyone's time. But if you get a 5 minute delay on that train at that station 5 days out of 7, then it is time to do some root cause analysis and fix the problem (such as faulty timetables).

I still see a lot of merit about asking why the delay happened. Because then you've got a huge bank of data as to why its happening if it then turns out why that train is delayed 5 days out of 7, which will make the root cause analysis much easier. There are a lot of performance systems now that allow users at stations to add a short comment on anything above 20 seconds which, whilst not true delay attribution, is useful for performance, especially if a train is losing a minute very often which may, for instance suggest a dwell issue.

But I would agree that delay attribution whilst having a significant and useful role to pay, has caused some unintended negative consequences as performance programmes step up and staff get worried about potential "please explain" questions. One-offs may be fine, but if certain crew seem to be delaying trains all the time for "unauthorised holds" whilst their colleagues don't, then there might be questions asked. In my brief crew days, a couple of times I maybe held open the doors 15-30 seconds more than usual if I evidently saw a few people running. It's called good situational awareness, and the end result was nothing major.

Connections/extra holds are one area where performance and customer service significantly clash (as we can see in this thread), and ultimately one would need to lose out. This (and delay attribution) I feel needs strategic, high-level input and should be one of the early focusses of GBR, in my opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still see a lot of merit about asking why the delay happened. Because then you've got a huge bank of data as to why its happening if it then turns out why that train is delayed 5 days out of 7, which will make the root cause analysis much easier. There are a lot of performance systems now that allow users at stations to add a short comment on anything above 20 seconds which, whilst not true delay attribution, is useful for performance, especially if a train is losing a minute very often which may, for instance suggest a dwell issue.

To be fair, this is the sort of thing that IT systems can also do well - rather than bother with a stack of formal "please explains", you just have an email sent to the driver/guard's phone with a link, which when clicked just takes them to a single page where they could select a "rough" reason for each minor delay and hit submit, with it just going straight into the database. 30 seconds' work so not disruptive.

You can analyse this further with a "big data" approach if you like - if you find the same guard is entering different delay reasons from every single driver they work with, then that could be flagged up for a quick chat as to why, which could be as simple as misunderstanding the system.

But I would agree that delay attribution whilst having a significant and useful role to pay, has caused some unintended negative consequences as performance programmes step up and staff get worried about potential "please explain" questions. One-offs may be fine, but if certain crew seem to be delaying trains all the time for "unauthorised holds" whilst their colleagues don't, then there might be questions asked. In my brief crew days, a couple of times I maybe held open the doors 15-30 seconds more than usual if I evidently saw a few people running. It's called good situational awareness, and the end result was nothing major.

And that's what logically should have happened in the case that started this thread.

Connections/extra holds are one area where performance and customer service significantly clash (as we can see in this thread), and ultimately one would need to lose out. This (and delay attribution) I feel needs strategic, high-level input and should be one of the early focusses of GBR, in my opinion.

And that's why I think the magic figure should be performance from a customer's perspective, i.e. based on delays to passenger journeys and not just individual services. That can of course go both ways - if a 10 minute delay turns a 30 minute connection into a 20 minute one, that's zero delay - it has genuinely had no adverse impact. The passenger might even be happy because that's 10 fewer minutes stood in the cold!

In paper ticket days that was hard to analyse, but if you put Advances, itineraries and e-ticket scans (the latter being able to confirm a passenger was following their booked itinerary) there's a lot you can do.

 

[Ken H]

And that is where it is time to ask - does that attribution directly benefit the passenger or the freight customer?

The modern railway has all sorts of internal contractual stuff that is just a waste of money and doesn't sit on the critical path to "punctually and safely moving people and stuff", which is the purpose of the railway. Things that don't directly support delivering the railway's fundamental purpose need simplifying out, particularly where (as in this case) they directly negatively impact that purpose.

Asking a guard to explain a one-off 5 minute delay is an utter waste of everyone's time. But if you get a 5 minute delay on that train at that station 5 days out of 7, or if one member of staff is involved in a disproportionately large number of delays than others*, then it is time to do some root cause analysis and fix the problem (such as faulty timetables). Obviously, just like other ITIL* stuff, the threshold to trigger root cause analysis can change as appropriate, but doing RCA on a one-off incident** is just a waste of time.


* Information Technology Infrastructure Library, a set of standard processes used in most IT Service Management contexts - my job, and something I increasingly become convinced can be applied in principle to almost any context of "stuff" happening to "stuff".

** One of the recent episodes of Signals to Danger highlighted a case where a driver had had multiple SPADs, but it took a very near miss which was investigated by the RAIB to find the root cause - his suffering from obstructive sleep apnoea, and thus effectively being half-asleep on the job over a prolonged period.

You would have to trust guards to have a little discretion. Do they really need that amount of micro-management?

 

[43066]

The system processing it based on quite detailed criteria (including stuff like through Advances sold and e-ticket scans) is what I'd envisage, FWIW. It could take other things into account, such as what the connecting train is doing. If you consider my theoretical Cornish branch example, if you imagine that the inbound from Paddington is say 15 late, but it is already known that the fault on the train will mean the next Paddington connection is definitely cancelled, then the overall benefit may be best if the branch train waits and the following round trip is cancelled to bring it back on time, because there's already known to be nothing for it to connect with, and the people in whatever charming little coastal town it is might be better served by spending an extra hour in the pub, on the beach, having chips or whatever than standing in the cold at an interchange station with few facilities as many of the Cornish ones do.

It’s a good idea, the problem is lack of funds and a structure of the railway which doesn’t really incentivise this kind of thing. It doesn’t sound like that will be changing under GBR based on what we have learned about it so far.

I'd go with what @Watershed says, to be honest, that is that each station should have a "risk assessment" done for each connection (clockface makes it easier, as it'll be the same all day) to establish how long it should be held and in what circumstances, so passengers on incoming trains are informed in advance of what will happen. This would include such things as "if it's -5 outside and the station has no shelter, it is unacceptable under any circumstances to strand passengers there for an hour", which might include such things as pre-arranging taxis or communicating to the train that passengers should take some other action, e.g. continue to Scarborough where waiting facilities are available.

It's not simple, but it's worth doing if you care about customer service.

The issue with the local instructions approach is the sheer complexity. A guard, or potentially a DOO driver, would have to rifle through a document detailing the instructions for each location they came to. Of course it’s also only half the battle as staff won’t be in a position to know about late running services on other routes and the instructions would essentially be useless without a way to get this information to them in real time format.

For all the comparisons with Switzerland it would be interesting to know how more comparably (to the U.K.) dense and intensive networks handle this, Japan for example.

But looking at the example given, I would say under say 3 minutes = always hold unless there are specific circumstances. Closing doors in peoples' faces as they cross from a train that's already there is unacceptable, and a train under 5 minutes late is in some ways not considered late at all. Some guards might have held it anyway and told a fib about assisting a disabled passenger when asked "please explain", but they shouldn't need to.

Perhaps in that example, but of course that wouldn’t work as a general policy in the south east, for instance, when you’re dealing with London metro routes and the Thameslink core. Of course the frequency of services in this part of the world also means that missing connections is much less of an issue.

What are the actual procedures given for when there are passengers obviously making for a train? What is actually trained?

Basically trains are dispatched based on checking the dispatch corridor. In the case of DOO services where the driver uses monitors there often won’t be any visibility of the area around this, so there would often be no way of knowing that passengers were making for the train.

The example you give of doors closing on a pram, on the face of it, would be quite unacceptable and treated as a serious incident if it happened on the national rail network.

Certain London terminals will delay dispatching last trains when they know passengers are running for them, but the general policy is to go on time so long as it’s safe to do so.

 

[HST274]

The TPE arrived at York, 3/4 of a minute late.
If it had been held to allow the northern passengers to join, it would of been 1-2 or even more minutes late arriving into York.
York is an 8 minute connection station.
TPE arriving later would potentially of made numerous people miss there connections through no fault of there own, but hey not to worry, the 2 or 3 passengers of the northern service got to York ok.

I would bet less people would miss a connection with 5 minutes at York than missed it at Seamer. Someone desperate could make that if physically fit- if not often people will look for a longer connection anyway, plus for all we know the train wouldn't have had to slow down for whatever the delay was (a red signal turned back to green) and would have got in at the same time.

Common sense is not completely absent. I asked a train close to 20 mins late (so late I thought it was the train after I was trying to catch) to hold so an elderly relative could use a ramp, and they obliged as there was a red signal to allow a steam train out. Admittedly a different situation, but showing that decisions should be made based on the context, and holding the doors for 30 secs to facilitate a late trains and prevent a 20-50 minute wait sounds like the right thing to do in that context

 

[GoneSouth]

Well yes, but only because the train can’t physically leave without them.

Yet quite happy to do so without passengers, the reason why they exist!

I don’t know the specific location, but it may very well be that guards wasn’t privy to that information. Generally discretion can be exercised for a few seconds here or there, but without being there and seeing the situation unfold it’s difficult to know

Any guard on that section of route knows exactly the services that operate there, it’s 2 branch lines where both Northern and TPX terminate at the same station and probably share the same coffee machine / office/ rest area etc… they know each other… and can clearly see that Seamer a nothing place to sit for an hour in the freezing cold.

Rightly or wrongly the industry is set up to incentivise delay minimisation.

It’s sets its own rules, it can change them where it’s required or sensible to do so. Hopefully a more joined up rather than a cash penalty blame game approach will emerge… I won’t hold my breath!

It may well be the case that holding that particular train at that particular location at that particular time would have made sense

Most definitely YES.

I hope the customers concerned all had their full journey delay repay for being an hour late!

I’d say it’s the right way to go about encouraging both existing and new passengers to just get back in their car and forget the train… I would if I could.

But having said that there are clearly a lot of dedicated and helpful people working in the industry… we just need to root out the ones who don’t give a ****!

On balance, I’ll put this one down to a bad apple … prove me right TPX

 

[800001]

I would bet less people would miss a connection with 5 minutes at York than missed it at Seamer. Someone desperate could make that if physically fit- if not often people will look for a longer connection anyway, plus for all we know the train wouldn't have had to slow down for whatever the delay was (a red signal turned back to green) and would have got in at the same time.

Common sense is not completely absent. I asked a train close to 20 mins late (so late I thought it was the train after I was trying to catch) to hold so an elderly relative could use a ramp, and they obliged as there was a red signal to allow a steam train out. Admittedly a different situation, but showing that decisions should be made based on the context, and holding the doors for 30 secs to facilitate a late trains and prevent a 20-50 minute wait sounds like the right thing to do in that context

You obviously have not had to assist people when the TPE arrives late from Scarborough, even by a few minutes, and they struggle locating the lifts, and platforms. 1-2 minutes late makes all the difference in missing connections at York.

I am not condoning the guard at seamer closing the doors in front of customers, common sense and customer service should of been foremost in his actions.

 

[mike57]

Isnt there a PIS system at Seamer. A glance at that would tell him the extent of the delay to the Northern train.

Yes there is, but its not always accurate, that day when we were sat in the platform according to the PIS we were still at Bempton, although the delay mins were accurate

 

[ChrisC]

Today at Nottingham I saw exactly the opposite happen to the incident at Seamer being discussed in this thread. A Newark train was just about to depart from platform 3 when a late running train from Worksop arrived in the adjacent platform 1. Half a dozen passengers ran across to the platform to the Newark train and the guard saw them and let them on and she then even had a quick check to see if any more passengers were hurrying across the platform. I don’t think it caused more than 15 seconds delay and that would have helped give the railway a good name. There’s been lots of criticism of EMR in recent months but I always find the on train staff really friendly and helpful to passengers.

 

[island]

One potential issue is that Par and Inverness, the trains are run by the same TOC, whereas here at Seamer, they are not. I'm not saying that it should be that way, its just that the realities of organising an inter-TOC hold are harder.

On the subject of Cornwall, whilst connections may be held at Par, down the line at St Erth there are big signs saying they will not hold St Ives trains.

For all the comparisons with Switzerland it would be interesting to know how more comparably (to the U.K.) dense and intensive networks handle this, Japan for example.

JR doesn't have delays

(I was at Hakata station several years ago and my train to Ōsaka was delayed over two hours. An NHK national news film crew showed up at the station to cover it, so rare an occurrence it was.)

 

[dk1]

On the subject of Cornwall, whilst connections may be held at Par, down the line at St Erth there are big signs saying they will not hold St Ives trains.

Understandable. Turn round timings are very tight.

 

[Fokx]

Isnt there a PIS system at Seamer. A glance at that would tell him the extent of the delay to the Northern train.

It’s not the job of the guard to observe PIS systems of other platforms and services.

It’s their job to observe the PTI, and ensure the train is dispatched safely and on time. The guard acted correctly in accordance with TPE policy and rules.

You may not agree that it was a morally correct decision they made but it the decision his/her employers have agreed is the correct process.

 

[Ken H]

It’s not the job of the guard to observe PIS systems of other platforms and services.

It’s their job to observe the PTI, and ensure the train is dispatched safely and on time. The guard acted correctly in accordance with TPE policy and rules.

You may not agree that it was a morally correct decision they made but it the decision his/her employers have agreed is the correct process.

Then his employers rules need revising.

 

[Craig1122]

I’m late to this chain, but it happened to me at Weybridge last year. No abundance of sympathy from the commentariat on here, and none from SWR either. Though a do remember a driver on that thread being a great deal more sympathetic. Sense can be applied but only by the sensible. The sense at 0800 on the Underground at Finchley Road is get the train out of the platform, there’s another one a minute away. Sense at Seamer is wait 20 seconds.

Presuming that you're talking about a connection to/from the line to Staines then this is a classic case of bad timetabling. It's still basically as introduced in 2004 and was generally a huge leap forward for timekeeping. However it's almost like the 'connections' at Weybridge were designed to be as infuriating as possible. For those not familiar it's a cross platform connection which varies between zero and 2 minutes depending on the time of day so sometimes you get lucky but more often than not you don't. If missed it's a 30+ minute wait. To add insult to injury the connecting train has an 8 minute dwell just 3 stops away at Virginia Water.

There are some timetable tweaks on the Staines/Windsor side which could almost certainly sort this and some other long standing problems out. However in this case it's not fair to blame staff on the ground when the TOC has ignored the root cause for 18 years! A surprising number of people still use the route so I can only imagine how many more it might be if connections were robust.

 

[Djgr]

It’s not the job of the guard to observe PIS systems of other platforms and services.

It’s their job to observe the PTI, and ensure the train is dispatched safely and on time. The guard acted correctly in accordance with TPE policy and rules.

You may not agree that it was a morally correct decision they made but it the decision his/her employers have agreed is the correct process.

Please don't try to justify the unjustifiable.

There are far too many people working on the railway with the wrong attitude and they need got rid. And that day is coming.

 

[dk1]

Please don't try to justify the unjustifiable.

There are far too many people working on the railway with the wrong attitude and they need got rid. And that day is coming.

Your comments have just made me chuckle.

 

[nanstallon]

Let's face it; passengers are a nuisance. As long as the TOC gets its management fee from the government, why should they care?

 

[Horizon22]

Please don't try to justify the unjustifiable.

There are far too many people working on the railway with the wrong attitude and they need got rid. And that day is coming.

It's not "unjustifiable". It may not have been the "right" course of action, but the guard is not going to get into trouble for doing what they did which was dispatch their service safely and without delay. As for your doomsday prediction about staff, I'm not sure what to make of that!

 

[Fokx]

Please don't try to justify the unjustifiable.

There are far too many people working on the railway with the wrong attitude and they need got rid. And that day is coming.

The unjustifiable?
Dispatching a train on time in accordance to the rules and regulations of the employer who pay the said employee to do such a task?

Don’t make me laugh

 

[GB]

deleted

 

[HST274]

The unjustifiable?
Dispatching a train on time in accordance to the rules and regulations of the employer who pay the said employee to do such a task?

Don’t make me laugh

It's not "unjustifiable". It may not have been the "right" course of action, but the guard is not going to get into trouble for doing what they did which was dispatch their service safely and without delay. As for your doomsday prediction about staff, I'm not sure what to make of that!

You obviously have not had to assist people when the TPE arrives late from Scarborough, even by a few minutes, and they struggle locating the lifts, and platforms. 1-2 minutes late makes all the difference in missing connections at York.

I am not condoning the guard at seamer closing the doors in front of customers, common sense and customer service should of been foremost in his actions.

This action does not deserve a firing or anything close to that. But that is not to say it was not incorrect. It wasn't the "right" decision, it was the right one, both morally and for customer service which is key. A the time said guard could not have know how late he would arrive into York. (I admit I did not consider the time taken being lost in York station which is quite complicated).
We have to remember this is not asking someone to hold a train 5,10 or even three minutes, but a guard closing the doors as several people are APPROACHING the train, slamming it in their faces (or sliding it ). There are not 4 platforms, or even two on opposite sides, but an island platform barely 10, 20 steps across. (I have attached a picture for those who haven't visited.) Yes they were 'doing their job', but one of the most important points on a railway is customer service. It is vital. They do not have their job to make a train run on time- that is a freight driver's job, and a signallers. They want to create a journey which is as best as possible. Being on time is part of that, but I never complain when I am delayed two minutes into my destination. I do complain when I and others are left standing on a platform in the rain for an hour because someone wanted to do their job too well. The admittedly dour prediction of the fate of train staff was too far. I may have gone a little far here. But seeing people mocking that prediction, does not tell me what should be said- that is "They were only doing their job, but a little too well and perhaps in the future we should strive to make it acceptable to hold trains a little'- but instead tells me, or seems to tell me that 'I will go on doing a lacklustre performance in my job without a care for customer service because I will never be pulled up on it'. No one, or very very few were chosen for that job if they lacked the skills. No guard has been chosen if they hate people, but some (some) do need to put that into work. Very long rant over- good night.

 

[CentralTrainer]

The unjustifiable?
Dispatching a train on time in accordance to the rules and regulations of the employer who pay the said employee to do such a task?

Don’t make me laugh

“I was only following orders…”

 

[yorkie]

I am not condoning the guard at seamer closing the doors in front of customers, common sense and customer service should of been foremost in his actions.

I am glad you agree

Today at Nottingham I saw exactly the opposite happen to the incident at Seamer being discussed in this thread. A Newark train was just about to depart from platform 3 when a late running train from Worksop arrived in the adjacent platform 1. Half a dozen passengers ran across to the platform to the Newark train and the guard saw them and let them on and she then even had a quick check to see if any more passengers were hurrying across the platform. I don’t think it caused more than 15 seconds delay and that would have helped give the railway a good name. There’s been lots of criticism of EMR in recent months but I always find the on train staff really friendly and helpful to passengers.

Well done that Guard. The EMR regional Guards in that area have a good reputation, and this is a good example of how it should be done. Others should follow their example.

 

[Jimini]

I am glad you agree

Well done that Guard. The EMR regional Guards in that area have a good reputation, and this is a good example of how it should be done. Others should follow their example.

Bit late to this thread but just reading the last few posts now. If EMR regional guards = Newark North Gate guards in charge of Lincoln departures, then my experience of them is sadly nothing like that. Many a £35 cab to Lincoln when the LNER train is slightly late and they crack on regardless!

 

[Bikeman78]

Seamer to York is timetabled as a 44 minute journey, I'd be surprised if there wasn't 30 seconds of slack in there allowing the train to catch up. If there isn't, there probably should be. Nobody is asking for every train to be held in every case, but here, it seems reasonable to hold the train briefly to allow the connection to be made.

There is plenty of recovery time. Two minutes dwell at Malton for a start. Most trains arrive at York two minutes early.

 

[InOban]

As others have said, the right decision will vary from route to route. And so it should be part of their training before they sign any route.
On the WHL, for example, trains can't be held because they must meet at passing loops. Hence if the FW sleeper is even slightly late, it gets later, because it must be held at an earlier loop. Otherwise the timetable would fall apart for the whole day.
But ferries can be, and I've been on a late-running service where the guard checked whether there were passengers for Mull.

An earlier post pointed out that the delay-repay bill lands with one TOC while any fine for late running as a consequence of holding the TPE service falls to a different TOC. there's also the revenue lost from passengers who vow never to use the train again after being stuck at Seamer for an hour.