Too much information?

An edited version of this article first appeared in the RNIB's Access magazine.

In August 2009 David Willetts MP aired his frustration about the number of announcements on his recent rail journeys. In so doing he prompted some mischievous coverage in the national media. It was a pick’n’mix selection of hot topics for columnists: health and safety, noise pollution, the railways, the sheer intrusiveness of modern life; Britain’s commuters as a metaphor for the population at large – a nation besieged by nanny-state nagging.

The broadcast media slipped into a lazy consensus. Announcements were bad, silence was good. The quiet announcement-free spaces at Airport termini were held up as best practice. The message was clear: Rail could be like this if it got its act together.

In this article, I’ll look at the purpose of announcements, the regulations that train operators have to comply with, the unique demands facing train companies and consider how a balance might be achieved for future.

The design and operation of most of Britain’s trains is governed by accessibility regulations. Since late 2007 these have been ultimately contained in a piece of European regulation known as the Technical Specification of Interoperability relating to Persons of Reduced Mobility (PRM-TSI) which itself originated from the British Rail vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 (RVAR) that were prescribed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

RVAR standards were in force over the last 10 years when a significant proportion of the national fleet of trains was built or refurbished. Both the RVAR and its successor the PRM-TSI make it mandatory for trains to have audible systems that announce the name of the route, the next station at which the train will be stopping, delays, any diversions from the published route and any emergency instructions. Despite claims to the contrary in The Daily Telegraph, the only additional requirement European regulation makes is that “the location of on-train facilities” should also be announced.

This basic customer information is made mandatory because it is so important to disabled customers who “may be reluctant to seek information by asking other passengers or staff.” As the government guidance goes on to say: “Indeed there might not always be other people around to ask”. In short it’s about giving disabled customers the facilities to travel and the confidence to use them.

Peter Barker, Professor of Inclusive Environments at Reading University (who is blind himself), emphasises the value of this information. “It is not only for sensory-impaired people – visitors to the country and print-disabled people also benefit” (and, in the author’s case, those of us who doze off on the commute home).

Note that there are no explicit requirements to broadcast announcements about suspicious people, quiet coaches, ticket validities, or the fact that CCTV is in operation throughout the journey. These are left to the discretion of individual train companies.

Train companies offer a walk-on service and have less advance knowledge of their customers than other transport providers. They do not just have “customers” they have “the public” and that includes people who commit crime or acts of terrorism. So announcements about security and CCTV are believed to have a deterrent-affect. They help create a climate in which it is acceptable for passengers to report suspicious behaviour. They also let the would-be criminal know that the rail environment is under surveillance. Big brother is watching you. Likewise announcements about catering, toilets, staff and quiet carriages also make customers aware of on train facilities they might need to use.

“But why oh why do they have to be so frequent?” I hear Jeremy Clarkson ask. Well, imagine if a plane travelling from London to Inverness had to stop to let people on and off at Watford, Birmingham and Glasgow. Any passenger staying on the plane for the whole journey would have to sit through four sets of evacuation instructions. That might be a touch maddening. Trains of course, have far more stops than planes, so train companies have to make a call as to how regularly the information needs to be given.

Information overload is specifically warned against in the government guidance, which says, “The provision of too much information… will cause many people confusion and will irritate other passengers”. As Clinical Psychologist Dr Laurence McKenna told the BBC when he said that train companies, “recognise the possibility of noise nuisance when they create Quiet Carriages and it’s interesting that they go against that policy in a sense by making constant announcements.”

This matter is complicated by one of the fundamental principles of disability inclusion: the imperative to give information in a range of formats. If a service provider does not do this it might exclude some disabled people, and be in breach of the DDA. But does every piece of information need to be given out audibly?

Not according the RVAR or the PRM-TSI. The only regulatory requirement is that basic running information is announced audibly. There is a way to square the circle. Visual information is less intrusive than audible information. Customers can close their eyes so that they don’t have to see the on-train information screens but they cannot close their ears to announcements. Some train companies recognise this and provide information of secondary importance more frequently on the train screens than they do over the announcements systems. Where there are on-train staff they can then make sure that customers who have boarded during the journey are appraised of any relevant “secondary” information.

This pragmatism is welcomed by some visually-impaired people. “When I’m trying to read something on my lap-top using text-to-speech software I do sometimes get irritated when the voices keep coming across telling me about CCTV and ticket types,” says Peter Barker. “But if its information that would be useful to other customers then that’s something I can live with. This is public transport after all – if you want to read a book, go to a library!”

Announcements are vital to many disabled people. The fact that train operating companies are taking time to get the balance of information right should not be used as justification to minimise announcements globally.

At present, rail stations remain characterised by the ongoing stream of announcements about departures and arrivals. However, in a parallel development, this too has become a subject for review. Network Rail – the organisation that manages Britain busiest rail stations - is currently experimenting with a “silent station concourse” at Birmingham New Street station.

Unlike trains, announcements on station concourses are not specifically required in accessibility regulations. Section L1 of the Department for Transport’s Accessible Train and Station Design for Disabled People: A Code of Practice gathers together regulations that govern spoken information “where provided”. This leaves service providers with the leeway to not provide it certain station environs. It is therefore possible to experiment with “oasis of calm” in the busy public transport environment, providing that alternative arrangements for visually impaired customers are made.

John Welsman, a visually-impaired rail user visiting Birmingham, expressed concerns about this development. “It’s all very well providing announcements on the platform – but how will I know which platform to go to if there are no announcements on the concourse? And how does that help blind people who are waiting when a train goes up on the screens at the last minute or gets re-platformed at short notice? In disruption are there really going to be enough staff available to identify disabled customers?”

These problems have been apparent for visually-impaired users of airports for some time. As Peter Barker explains, “I negotiate airports with great difficulty. I don’t like airports where there are no announcements. Departures really should be announced regularly.

“The Discrimination Acts apply to airports as much as they apply to rail stations. If the airport is not announcing vital information then it has to provide other means of assisting visually-impaired customers such as me. In all likelihood that means it has to provide more staff. Surely there is a good business case for making announcements?”

So whilst it seems that some train companies are refining their provision of on-train information, a more fundamental debate appears to be opening up: should rail stations become more like airports? Or would it be better for airports to become more like rail stations?

“Perhaps,” says David Sindall, Head of Disability & Inclusion at ATOC, “those of us who work in train companies or disability organisations need to ask ourselves how we can best educate rail users, the media and decision makers about the added value of in-journey announcements as part of a broader agenda around inclusivity?”