What constitutes a good service?

In Australia outside the capital cities, one train a day is regarded as pretty good.

I was impressed at Paddington once...

"Ladies and gentlemen, there is a good service operating on the Circle Line"

<a moment later>

"Ladies and gentlemen this is Paddington control room, your next Circle Line service will be along in approximately 22 minutes".

Hmm, interesting questions citysig.
Well, I guess suspended and partly suspended are quite clear. But the difference between a good service, minor delays and severe delays is a lot harder to distinguish. One or two trains falling out in a case like this may look like it's quite a delay on the Nothern Line bank branch, because the frequency isn't very high. On the other hand, one train falling out on the Victoria line means you may have to wait 4 or 5 minutes instead of 2, which is hardly noticeable to most people... so should there be different definitions for different lines?

What I think is most important to riders is to give advice on whether or not they should be looking for alternatives, and tell them what those alternatives are. For example: I live near Finsbury Park and want to go to Green Park. They tell me there are minor delays on the Victoria Line. Will it be a better option for me to take the Piccadilly, or go for the Victoria anyway?

Of course, such detailed information should only be given in about the lines serving that station. More general information is good enough for the lines not served.

I think there are two things passengers want to know
Are they going to have to wait longer than normal for their train?
Is it going to take longer than normal for the train they are on to travel to their destination station?

I also think there should be more levels of disruption, perhaps
short - up to 5 minutes longer between trains / ~5 minutes longer journey time
minor - ~5-10 minutes
moderate - ~10-15 minutes...
Long - ~15-30 minutes
Severe - ~30-45 minutes
Very severe - ~45-60 minutes
Extreme - ~60+ minutes

Obviously the later ones will not be used very often, but it would be good to have them there for when they are needed. I'm also not certain whether "short" is needed or not.
There should be some way of distinguishing between events that will cause less frequent trains but normal journey times, longer journey times but similar frequency of service and lower frequency and longer journey time. I can't think off my head how to clearly phrase this though.

If there are noticeable gaps in the service, but it is otherwise running OK this should still be communicated. "Noticeable" gaps would be intervals about 5 minutes longer than normal for scheduled frequencies of 2 or 3tph or greater, about 10 minutes for longer intervals. Perhaps "There is good service running on the Northern Line, although there may be extended gaps of up to 10 minutes between some trains on the Bank branch" or "There is a good service running on the Northern Line but with occasional gaps of up to 10 minutes between some trains". The effect should be to create the impression that it will depend exactly when you get to the platform whether you are lucky or unlucky.

Alternatively, you could go for a completely different style and have a code of sorts, classifying different service levels - "There is a level 3A service running on the Northern Line" with a number for the frequency and a letter for the journey time. This would require a massive initial and (very) large ongoing publicity campaign to explain to users what the codes mean. Posters could have it in several languages to help tourists. I wold not recommend this though as it is not very userfriendly - especially for infrequent users.

With the exception of the last train (and possibly through trains), it matters not to the passenger whether the train that they get on should have been there 20 minutes earlier or 20 minutes later. The two things they care about are how long they have to wait for a train, and how long the journey takes.

I remember a few years ago that I heard about a study done in Switzerland that showed that the service interval is more important than the journey time. I think it was something like people preferred a 10 minute interval service that took 30 minutes to get to the destination over a 30 minute interval service that took 20 minutes.

Psychologically, for a service every 15-20 minutes (or more frequently) most people will treat it as a turn up and go when the bus/train gets there. A 30 minute interval people look at timetables and plan to get there shortly before the bus/train.

For the purposes of the Underground, if a journey that normally takes 2 minutes takes 5 minutes few will particularly notice, a 2 minute journey that takes 10 minutes people will notice but many people will put up with it. A 2 minute journey that takes 30 minutes and people will be annoyed. A 40 minute journey that takes 50 minutes most people will still take, a 40 minute journey that takes an hour will get people complaining and thinking of alternatives, but some will still travel on it.

What's a Good Service depends on which line you're on. Yesterday the Central got it right with "Severe Delays" as they were running with 5 minute intervals (and were absolutely rammed at Ofxford Circus at 3pm), not because the train waiting around, but because dwell times were massively increased and not everyone could get on the train. (I couldn't, I took the Vic to King's X and then H&C to Liverpool Street instead).

Maybe rather than saying there's a good service you should announce that there are no delays.

How did the meeting go?

I've just read this thread and will add my 2p's worth.

I think we need to think who are key customer is when we are passing on this information. Is it commuters/ tourists etc. Once the key customer has been identified we need to change the lanuague to fit their definitions, without confusing the other customers.

For example, if service status messages are primarily designed for commuters, I feel the term GOOD SERVICE, is a problem one. Most commuters will experience some kind of delay on a GOOD SERVICE so would find such a definition a problem. Whilst a tourist wouldn't have a problem with the definition of a GOOD SERVICE if they're on the platform for an extra 5-10 mins.

To try and explain the delay as a minute value, would also be difficult. On the Central Line for example, you would have different services say at Ruislip Gardens, Greenford, North Acton etc.

I'd suggest these terms

NORMAL SERVICE - trains running normally
CANCELLATIONS - longer gaps in trains, but no onward delays
DELAYS - trains runnins with some delays (Minor delays)
DISRUPTED - trains running with significant problems (SEVERE DELAYS)
SEVERE DISRUPTION - avoid the line is possible.
PART SUSPENDED - same as now
SUSPENDED - same as now
ENGINEERING WORK - replaces the closure definitions.

I agree, the best alternative to "cancellations" I can think of would be "(some) extended intervals"

Meeting hasn't happened yet - this coming Monday. So still taking notes from here ;D

Likewise, when they just say there is a good service or delays, but don't tell you where the next train might be!

The other one that is quite pointless I find is the,
"As part of the TfL investment programme there are 3 Station Closures and 4 Track Closures this weekend".
First off isnt this money comeing from the PPP not the £10bn loan from the treasury, I seem to recall seeing that the PPP wasnt being funded by it, or is this just a bit of pro-Livingstone spin and secondly, it doesnt tell you what is shut! Grrrrrr!!!!!

Unfortunately at least some of them are due to the mystery shopper survey thing - one of the things they rate is clearness of PA's, and if they can't hear them, I gather you get no mark.

And who are going to give me the aggro if they've heard a load of stupid announcements and not received any relevant info!

Depends if you're the unlucky sod identified for being responsible for a bad score or not, really. Since bonuses and stuff are, I gather, tied into the mystery shopper system scores...

We actually had a Team Talk meeting yesterday (the first on the group in about six years, apparently) and the official line, passed down via our GSM, is now that there must be a service update every four minutes in Central London stations, prioritising the lines that pass through the station, and every ten minutes at stations outside Central London. These intervals have been based on customer research, etc. However, announcements about Oyster cards, no smoking, etc, are no longer required frequently. Of course, uptake on this depends on the station supervisor (or control room assistants in Central London, I suppose?).

I think "lower frequencies" sounds better, personally.


Not really. A good service on all lines is more like 'breaking news'.

Yes, there are way too many of this. And I really don't think they'r needed at all, especially at non-touristy stations (everything outside zone 1 except for Camden Town and Heathrow, basically)