Can platform staff hold a train (within reason)?

[Western Sunset]

The past is a foreign country...

 

[bb21]

Ok so 3 minutes rather than 5 (quite like to know why some TOCs like to claim they're "on time" up to 5 minutes in that case), but the point still stands that a 1 minute delay on its own won't cause the operator to be fined, and staff certainly shouldn't be telling passengers otherwise.

"On time" (including PPM) is a punctuality metric stemming from contracts with DfT.
Schedule 8 sums are a track access contractual element between operator and infrastructure owner.

That's why they don't really align as they are completely un-related matters.

 

[CEN60]

Glasgow / Edinburgh to Inverness "connect" with Kyle / Far North trains - I have seen the Kyle train (or the reverse connecting Inverness Glasgow) held by 5mins or so to allow passengers to make the connection (I appreciate the timetable in that neck of the woods has a little more flexibility) - I am not sure what the cut off point is though! The other point is the connecting train is normally only 2 platforms away (1 minute walk)

 

[bb21]

"Once the train loses its path, it loses its priority and trains running on-time will be put ahead of it." Even if it makes more sense to try and get the late-running train back on time. Worse when they're different TOCs and fares are financing an army of lawyers to apportion blame for delay.

Delays need to be investigated so that they can be properly managed going forward. It isn't about "blame". Just because some people abuse the attribution process and many (politicians, general public, press, and sometimes railway employees included) like to take a cheap shot at the process does not mean it has no purpose.

"Once the train loses its path, it loses its priority and trains running on-time will be put ahead of it." is not universally true either.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Because some people here need training in how to do the job properly.

In terms of staff being able to use their initiative one might hope that a guard walking through the local train checking tickets might notice that there were seven 'up country' ticket holders in the same way that @Taunton's guard at Minehead would notice the luggage 60 years ago. And presumably they have a mobile phones or tablet that they can use to alert Control if appropriate?

But in any event I wouldn't expect any service to be held at Bristol Temple Meads at the height of the morning peak anyway. The guard may well have been trained 'not to ask'.

As a former Station Manager I will re-iterate what I have posted before; namely that for every Usain Bolt clone making a last second door-button lunge there is probably somebody less mobile with luggage who is still waiting for a lift down from their arrival platform and will turn up about five minutes later. A 'hold' is virtually never 'just 30 seconds'.

And running around a station is hazardous for oneself and others. I saw two people drop dead with heart attacks running for trains. It is never worth it.

Finally; delay attribution was invented by BR and started before privatisation. Their last great corporate achievement in my view. As stated above, it is nothing to do with 'blame' or 'lawyers'. It is about identification of root cause for the purposes of performance management and improvement.

 

[Horizon22]

So.

The passenger has first to realise themselves the train is late compared to its schedule down the line from where they boarded, have an understanding of any recovery time or not, etc.

The passenger then has to take it on themselves to go and find the guard, who with units multipled together may be wholly inaccessible.

The passenger also has to know their guard could do something about maintaining a tight connection, a service which is not advertised anywhere.

The guard then has to try and get through to Swindon Control and request this.

In this case Swindon Control now has to try and get through to Cross Country control in Birmingham, because apparently despite GWR being in charge of dispatch at Bristol, they are not - if it's a different company's train.

Cross Country Control then has to try and get through to someone (their guard?) to say hold the train.

That's not going to all work in a few minutes, is it?

Let me tell you how it used to work in the 1960s on the Taunton-Minehead branch. The guard would notice passengers joining the train at Minehead with heavy luggage, or chat to the porter, that there were passengers connecting to The Devonian at Taunton. If delayed on the branch, the guard would shout to the platform porter at Bishops Lydeard (notice proactively, doesn't have to be told) "Tell 'em to hold the Devvy a bit, people for Leeds". The porter would phone directly to the Up platform inspector at Taunton (notice trusted to do this directly, no need to go through two levels of Control), who would send a porter down to the branch bay to assist with any luggage. All in, off a few minutes late. Full regulator, fireman shovels a bit more, back on time at Bristol. This wasn't Thomas the Tank Engine, it was how things were actually run then.

Wonderful, when you're not running nearly as many trains on the network and the "fireman can shovel a bit more". Times have changed quite a bit with very different requirements.

Connections can work well when passengers are going from an intercity - branch that is isolated for the rest of the network. It is always harder doing it in reverse because of the wider impacts.

 

[142blue]

I am trained that the dispatch process starts at a designated time with the train departing on time.

However.... Some connections are very tight and we do ask if it's not going to be a big impact to hold a connecting service, state how many are coming over etc

But we should not do that and we go against dispatch procedures by doing so.

 

[Ex-controller]

Glasgow / Edinburgh to Inverness "connect" with Kyle / Far North trains - I have seen the Kyle train (or the reverse connecting Inverness Glasgow) held by 5mins or so to allow passengers to make the connection (I appreciate the timetable in that neck of the woods has a little more flexibility) - I am not sure what the cut off point is though! The other point is the connecting train is normally only 2 platforms away (1 minute walk)

There are four trains per day on those routes and even at that connection decisions will vary. Many times ScotRail have preferred taxis for passengers rather than risk causing delays on the single line.

 

[Spartacus]

Let me tell you how it used to work in the 1960s on the Taunton-Minehead branch. The guard would notice passengers joining the train at Minehead with heavy luggage, or chat to the porter, that there were passengers connecting to The Devonian at Taunton. If delayed on the branch, the guard would shout to the platform porter at Bishops Lydeard (notice proactively, doesn't have to be told) "Tell 'em to hold the Devvy a bit, people for Leeds". The porter would phone directly to the Up platform inspector at Taunton (notice trusted to do this directly, no need to go through two levels of Control), who would send a porter down to the branch bay to assist with any luggage. All in, off a few minutes late. Full regulator, fireman shovels a bit more, back on time at Bristol. This wasn't Thomas the Tank Engine, it was how things were actually run then.

Funny enough in 1969 'The Pain Train' was produced, to show how such minor delays rapidly escalated.

 

[bb21]

In terms of staff being able to use their initiative one might hope that a guard walking through the local train checking tickets might notice that there were seven 'up country' ticket holders in the same way that @Taunton's guard at Minehead would notice the luggage 60 years ago. And presumably they have a mobile phones or tablet that they can use to alert Control if appropriate?

That is assuming for starters, before any attempt at even alerting Control:
(1) The guard has time to pay attention and remember what connections every single customer wants;
(2) The guard is aware of the time of the connecting train, and that it is a tight connection;
(3) The guard has time to check connection information in between their other duties;

The guard may not even work that line often enough to be aware of this particular connection.

Unless there is a desperate need to hold the XC service, I can fully understand why it does not get held, given the distance it still has to travel and the number of tight junction margins ahead. There won't be anyone available to analyse in full what will likely happen if the train is held for a minute. Even a 30-second delay on minimum headway can result in other trains behind receiving unfavourable signal aspects which can affect driving behaviour and magnify the impact of those 30 seconds.

 

[Dai Corner]

Funny enough in 1969 'The Pain Train' was produced, to show how such minor delays rapidly escalated.

Available on Youtube

 

[norbitonflyer]

Finally; delay attribution was invented by BR and started before privatisation. Their last great corporate achievement in my view. As stated above, it is nothing to do with 'blame' or 'lawyers'. It is about identification of root cause for the purposes of performance management and improvement.

That may be why it was introduced. But as soon as more than one commercial organisation is concerned and the "wooden dollars" become real ones, the lawyers and accountants have to be involved. In the example I gave, a five minute delay by one company and an on-time departure by the other resulted in a 60 minute delay for over 70 passengers. You wouldn't pay a delivery driver if he turned up on time but without your parcel. Likewise, a delay should be recorded even if a train turns up at its destination on schedule if it has failed to deliver the people who were supposed to be on it (either because a connection has not been honoured or because of skip-stopping).

Too many operators treat getting the trains to their destinations as the raison d'etre of the railway - getting the paying public there too is a bonus.

 

[AlterEgo]

Likewise, a delay should be recorded even if a train turns up at its destination on schedule if it has failed to deliver the people who were supposed to be on it (either because a connection has not been honoured or because of skip-stopping).

That results in you double-counting delays. The GWR service is the one that was late here. Do you want trains to run to time or not?

Delaying a train on purpose (which is nicely termed "holding" but let's just call it what it is!) - results in other passengers being delayed and likely missing connections down the line. Then you'll incentivise trains to be even further delayed at those stations to wait for them.

 

[seagull]

Having worked trains over the route north from Bristol TM in the dim and distant past, it is absolutely correct to say that even a 30 second initial delay (and of course it would likely not just be only 30 seconds) could cause far larger repercussions and delay further along, something like this:

Train departs Bristol TM 30 seconds late.
Train now held before Bristol Parkway as a train is crossing over the junction in front (which would have crossed behind, normally).
Train departs Bristol Parkway 2 minutes late.
Train now held approaching the junction east of Gloucester as an on-time train is accessing Gloucester from the north.
Train departs Cheltenham Spa 4 minutes late.
Train misses its path in front of a Cross City stopper from Kings Norton to Birmingham New Street, and so follows it to New Street.
Train arrives at Birmingham New Street 12 minutes late.
Train departs Birmingham New Street only 10 minutes late thanks to some nifty station work (yeah, yeah, it can occasionally happen)...
... but catches up and gets stuck behind the oil tanks to Kingsbury from Washwood Heath area (which should have followed the Edinburgh train)
Train now passes Tamworth 20 minutes late.

And so on.

 

[bb21]

That may be why it was introduced. But as soon as more than one commercial organisation is concerned and the "wooden dollars" become real ones, the lawyers and accountants have to be involved. In the example I gave, a five minute delay by one company and an on-time departure by the other resulted in a 60 minute delay for over 70 passengers. You wouldn't pay a delivery driver if he turned up on time but without your parcel. Likewise, a delay should be recorded even if a train turns up at its destination on schedule if it has failed to deliver the people who were supposed to be on it (either because a connection has not been honoured or because of skip-stopping).

Too many operators treat getting the trains to their destinations as the raison d'etre of the railway - getting the paying public there too is a bonus.

But if you delayed the on time departure of that train, it could cause many more than 70 customers being delayed, some far longer than 60 minutes.

I am not saying that is definitely what will happen, but the risk of that happening is high, so you simply won't risk it and contain the delay within those 70 customers. As I said before, Control probably don't have long to make these decisions, and there isn't anyone who can sit there and analyse in detail what disruption holding the XC service will likely cause further down the line.

The solution does not lie within holding connections, but rather working to ensure the incoming train is delayed as little and as few times as possible.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I felt this was especially egregious given the next northbound XC was not scheduled to depart until 0932 due to XC’s covid timetable.

This is the crux of it. 1tph is not sufficient on the Bristol-Birmingham corridor. If XC were running their standard timetable, it would only have been half an hour's delay and I strongly suspect OP would not have felt moved to post here.

 

[Bluejays]

Looks like the 8 minute delay was actually incurred waiting at Clifton Down itself. Train arrived at 08:09 and left at 08:19. After leaving clifton there was a stop approx every 2/3 minutes. Presumably not allowing the guard much time to check tickets and know who has onward connections. Why would you not wander down to the guard after say 5 minutes of not moving from clifton, and mention that you are in danger of missing a connection and Is there anything they can do in terms of arranging a hold. Or just after leaving Clifton with a big delay walk down and mention to the guard that you have a connection.

 

[The exile]

And what if that incoming one is late, because the previous working of THAT train was also late? More applicable to a metro service (like the Severn Branch is to be fair) but can cause ongoing problems if not dealt with by a service intervention of some sort.

Interestingly - in the days when DB was considered to be an excellent example of how to run a railway, timetables made it clear that “S-Bahn trains will not be held for connections; other trains will not be held for the S-Bahn”

 

[Falcon1200]

Because some people here need training in how to do the job properly.

Ah, the old "everything was better in the old days"

Not holding connections is not a new thing; Back in the 70s, more than once I arrived at Birmingham New St off a late running express from the north, only to see the tail light of my 1925 service to Oxford disappearing into the tunnel. The next train was 2042.....

 

[40129]

The irony would be that if the OP explained Delay Repay to his wife and she still chose to drive in future, only to be delayed on the motorway. Could someone remind me how much compensation Highways England pay drivers for delays caused by roadwork, accidents, et al?

 

[DorkingMain]

In an effort to convince my wife of the virtues of rail travel and get her out of her car, I offered to accompany her on this morning’s 0810 GWR service from Clifton Down to Temple Meads and ensure she made her connection - the 0835 XC service to Edinburgh.

The GWR service is scheduled to arrive BRI at 0825 but was delayed because the train coming in the opposite direction was late (it’s a single track railway between Redland and Stapleton Road).

We arrived at 0834 and made a dash for it worthy of Usain Bolt but missed the XC by approximately 5 seconds.

I protested to the staff on the platform that it would have been reasonable for the XC to have been held in these circumstances. Just a 30 second hold would have been sufficient for 7 people to have made the connection.

I felt this was especially egregious given the next northbound XC was not scheduled to depart until 0932 due to XC’s covid timetable.

Cue a litany of excuses:

1. “If ‘they’ don’t tell us it’s late [the GWR Severn Beach service] then we don’t know.” - it was not clear to me who ‘they’ are. Surely platform staff are monitoring live arrivals and departures?

2. “The control room in Swindon is responsible for holding trains, not platform staff.” - really?

3. It’s two different train companies and therefore not a valid connection.” - really?

4. “The train company is fined £150 per minute for delayed departures so we can’t hold trains” - really?

5. You should have asked the train manager on the GWR service to request a hold for you.” - but I thought you couldn’t hold them anyway?

Nothwithstanding the contradictory nature of the above excuses, I feel that all that was required in this situation was a little bit of (dare I say it?) ‘common sense’.

Had there been someone overseeing arrivals and departures who was on the ball, and had they taken action by instructing platform staff to hold the XC for 1 minute, a lot of pain could have been avoided and a few folks wouldn’t have been late for work.

I was disappointed with the attitude of the staff on the platform who did not want to take ownership of the problem and simply deflected the blame onto others.

My question to this forum is, is there anything the staff or station management at BRI could/should have done in this situation? Or are they just following the operational rules and regulations of the railway?

Who is in charge of overseeing connections at major interchanges like BRI and what responsibilities/powers do they have?

Needless to say, my wife will be back in her car tomorrow, clogging up the M5.

All points except 3 are entirely correct, unfortunately.

1. Platform staff dispatching a train will dispatch right time unless they are instructed to do so otherwise. They aren't staring at every arrival into and out of a busy station because they can't focus on the safety elements of their job if they do.

2. This is correct. Trains aren't to be held to connect with another train unless control specifically instructs it to be done. This has been the case with both TOCs I've worked for. Platform staff are certainly not empowered to make this decision and would probably be told off for doing so on their own volition.

3. TOC control rooms can and do talk to each other, so this seems like an unreasonable point. Obviously with services run by the same TOC this is more integrated but it's not impossible for TOC A to say to TOC B "could you hold a couple of mins, we have a large number of pax on service A that want service B".

4. Train companies are fined huge amounts for delays, unless they can attribute them to an external cause that prevented their train departing on time. Holding for a tight connection with another train is unfortunately not one of them.

5. Guards / TMs can make this request to control as per point 3, though my experience with it being met positively is mixed.

 

[bb21]

4. Train companies are fined huge amounts for delays, unless they can attribute them to an external cause that prevented their train departing on time. Holding for a tight connection with another train is unfortunately not one of them.

Unfortunately even for causes deemed to be outside the control of the industry, anything falling under the "TOC responsible" umbrella (eg. vandalism, police attendance on train, etc) rather than the "NR responsible" umbrella (eg. trespass, level crossing misuse, etc) will still see the operator suffer financial penalties. All "external" causes will be one or the other.

Outwith the Passenger's Charter regime (which has now been superceded at pretty much every TOC) its significance from a financial perspective is greatly diminished.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

The same happened to me at Weybridge a week ago. Slight delays on train from Addlestone. We run into the bay platform at the same time as the main line train on the opposite face. Off we get to be confronted by closing doors from the guard despatched train. Cue 30 mins extra waiting and a complaint to SWT. Madness, and this was 20:12, not morning or evening peak. I was spitting feathers because it was so unnecessary. 15 seconds would have been enough.

 

[Starmill]

Actually EMT were not their competitor on that route. Legally, they were a subcontractor: I had bought the ticket from East Coast (the operator at the time), so my contract was with them. If a subcontractor falls down on the job, it is the responsibility of the main contractor to sort it out, not the client.

The subcontract position was particularly clear in this situation - in the original Eureka timetable, there should have been a direct train at the time I needed to travel, but EC had given themselves permission to not run the full franchised service.

I'm afraid this isn't true. The NRCoT make clear where the lines of contract lie, they are between the ticket holder and the companies on whose trains they may use the ticket.

 

[matt_world2004]

I wonder if a lost customer hours metric like what tfl uses would encourage more holds for popular interchange routes. Particularly with smart ticketing becoming on the rise

 

[bramling]

One would hope that at a large junction station, there would be some "joined-up thinking" which placed the fare-paying customer at the centre of things...

What about the many fare-paying customers on the XC service who would be delayed, in order to maintain a connection for a handful of people?

Just one of those little facts of life unfortunately. There isn’t someone sitting in a room somewhere monitoring every possible connection, this simply isn’t a realistic expectation.

Could the platform staff have kept the doors open for a little longer? If it really was 5 seconds then perhaps, but had they already started sending off the train before the people appeared?

I certainly agree that with less frequent Covid timetables maintaining connections is more important than it might have been, and of course with fewer trains running the railway has more space to accommodate the occasional small delay.

 

[nanstallon]

My feeling over the years has grown that trains are 'point to point', and I try as far as possible to avoid a journey which relies on connections between trains. Rather than use Penryn on the Falmouth branch and connect at Truro with a main line train, I have started to use Redruth and join the main line train there.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Suppose the alternative might have been to catch the earlier 0737 service from Clifton Down so as to not rely upon a ten minute connection at Bristol Temple Meads where the minimum connection time is... ten minutes.

 

[morrisobrien]

Funny enough in 1969 'The Pain Train' was produced, to show how such minor delays rapidly escalated.

What a film!...Have never seen this one before.Love the "trimming parcels" part.

 

[bb21]

I wonder if a lost customer hours metric like what tfl uses would encourage more holds for popular interchange routes. Particularly with smart ticketing becoming on the rise

Lost customer hours becomes far less meaningful a metric outside metro operations.

On a metro operation the emphasis would be on headway, which is completely different when services are 30 minutes or more apart.