Can platform staff hold a train (within reason)?

[Class83]

Holding an northbound Cross Country at Bristol is pretty unlikely, it will have a tight path through Birmingham New Street to hit. It would probably be much easier to hold briefly for the opposite direction, a southbound Cross Country slightly late that had passengers alighting for various local options. None of which would cause knock on delays if held for 2 mins.

 

[mmh]

Neither of those are valid advertised connections at Temple Meads, the earliest valid connection off that train is 0835, as the station has a 10 minute minimum connection time.

This sounds like apologism to me. The railway has lots of official connections which are routinely broken, due to a combination of poor timekeeping but also poor timetabling. Yes, sorry, timetables can be rubbish.

There is a 7 minute connection I've used often which has always resulted in a missed connection. The last time resulting in a two hour delay.

The modern railway is rubbish, and pretending it isn't won't improve it.

 

[Shrop]

These days I wouldn't expect much in the way of connections, but at some stations staff do use a level of discretion. The crux is often whether the onward train has a tight path at any point before its final destination, in which case staff are likely to ignore almost everything to get it to depart on time.
What can be galling is when staff take a jobsworth attitude and let trains depart while passengers are literally arriving at the doors trying to get in, when that train has little or no pathing issues ahead, such as late evening heading towards an are where there are few or even no other services.

 

[O L Leigh]

Pardon me, but what’s “a connection”?

I was under the impression that such a thing no longer exists in the way it did when it was BR. Certainly you don’t see them in timetables any more.

I wonder if folk are mistaking their National Rail Enquiries (or whoever) itinerary for something a bit more guaranteed. Saying that there is “connecting time” at this location or that is a misnomer because it’s just the amount of time the enquiries engine allows for you to cross from one platform to another. It most definitely does not infer that changing from Train A to Train B is going to be guaranteed or that Train B will be held in the event that Train A is delayed.

I suppose whether or not it’s right is a subjective question. Problem is that the network is more congested now than was the case under BR with much tighter timings as a result. It may not seem much to delay a train by a minute or two to aid those passengers joining it, but if that train then has to go through a much busier section, that minute or two can quickly spread and affect more trains elsewhere across the network.

 

[Horizon22]

This sounds like apologism to me. The railway has lots of official connections which are routinely broken, due to a combination of poor timekeeping but also poor timetabling. Yes, sorry, timetables can be rubbish.

There is a 7 minute connection I've used often which has always resulted in a missed connection. The last time resulting in a two hour delay.

The modern railway is rubbish, and pretending it isn't won't improve it.

How is it "apologism" - the minimum connection time is there to ensure that people of all mobilities can reach their connecting train in a decent time and at large stations like Bristol Temple Meads this might be longer. I'm not sure I follow when you say "routinely broken"? You mean the first train is always late?

 

[Shrop]

This thread is, predictably, peppered with justifications for trains departing on time irrespective of who might be trying to board (or make a presumed connection). What goes less noticed by so many defenders of rail operations, is comments such as that made by the OP that his wife will revert to the M5 after her unsatisfactory rail experience. This distrust of rail journeys, generally borne out by similar experiences, is a lot more prevalent in the minds of road users than our rail planners seem to realise.

 

[O L Leigh]

This thread is, predictably, peppered with justifications for trains departing on time irrespective of who might be trying to board (or make a presumed connection). What goes less noticed by so many defenders of rail operations, is comments such as that made by the OP that his wife will revert to the M5 after her unsatisfactory rail experience. This distrust of rail journeys, generally borne out by similar experiences, is a lot more prevalent in the minds of road users than our rail planners seem to realise.

I do get that. And it is unfortunate.

But precisely what is to be done? It's not known whether or not there was someone else who fits the same description as the OP's better half who was delighted to have had the XC service arrive on time for their journey and is now considering rail as a realistic option. Surely trains that run to time is what people want?

If there was a let-down it was in the late arrival on the local train, not in the on-time departure of the XC service. Platform staff are, as has been explained, limited with regard to how much initiative they can exercise before they start getting pulled-up for delaying trains. A late arriving local service may not necessarily be bringing in passengers for the long-distance departure, so delaying it might actually be totally futile.

 

[AlterEgo]

This sounds like apologism to me. The railway has lots of official connections which are routinely broken, due to a combination of poor timekeeping but also poor timetabling. Yes, sorry, timetables can be rubbish.

There is a 7 minute connection I've used often which has always resulted in a missed connection. The last time resulting in a two hour delay.

The modern railway is rubbish, and pretending it isn't won't improve it.

I really don’t understand how you think that’s some sort of apologism. What’s your point? That because advertised railway connections are broken daily that meet the proper connection times, that it’s a good idea to hold trains for unofficial ones which passengers decide to use anyway? (And which will never show up on any journey planner)

My point was solely to that single poster that the trains they listed don’t meet the minimum connection time, and passengers are never given the impression they can connect from one to the other from a journey planner.

 

[Horizon22]

This thread is, predictably, peppered with justifications for trains departing on time irrespective of who might be trying to board (or make a presumed connection). What goes less noticed by so many defenders of rail operations, is comments such as that made by the OP that his wife will revert to the M5 after her unsatisfactory rail experience. This distrust of rail journeys, generally borne out by similar experiences, is a lot more prevalent in the minds of road users than our rail planners seem to realise.

But then there are also people who complain about delays - one of which could be because of held connections on theit train causing delays further along the route. In a large public transport system it simply cannot work both ways. No matter how much staff try, delays are bound to occur and ultimately the aim should be to keep them as small as possible and try and impact as few people as possible.

 

[Shrop]

I do get that. And it is unfortunate.

But precisely what is to be done? It's not known whether or not there was someone else who fits the same description as the OP's better half who was delighted to have had the XC service arrive on time for their journey and is now considering rail as a realistic option. Surely trains that run to time is what people want?

If there was a let-down it was in the late arrival on the local train, not in the on-time departure of the XC service. Platform staff are, as has been explained, limited with regard to how much initiative they can exercise before they start getting pulled-up for delaying trains. A late arriving local service may not necessarily be bringing in passengers for the long-distance departure, so delaying it might actually be totally futile.

It's when people are physically at the train, having arrived from another, trying to board but the doors are locked and it departs without them, that is really galling. You might think Birmingham to Euston would be a big no-no for holding the train for a few seconds, but I once sat on a Euston train and watched as some 20 hapless passengers arrived on an Aberstwyth train on an adjacent platform and tried to board. Alas for them the doors were locked, and stayed locked for about a minute before the train moved off without them. This was all very well, but we then stood for 5 minutes at Rugby waiting for time. People on the train had already been commenting at Birmingham when the passengers were refused entry, and they noticed again when we stood at Rugby. People aren't stupid, they do notice when rail services appear to treat passengers badly, and it really does influence their future transport mode of choice.

But then there are also people who complain about delays - one of which could be because of held connections on theit train causing delays further along the route. In a large public transport system it simply cannot work both ways. No matter how much staff try, delays are bound to occur and ultimately the aim should be to keep them as small as possible and try and impact as few people as possible.

Many on time departures are understandable, but although you might find it hard to believe, some rail staff have little comprehension of when it's reasonable to hold a train for a few seconds, and when it isn't. When I arrived into Eastleigh at 11.00pm on a heavily delayed ex Waterloo train and 40 of us tried to board the Portsmouth train on the adjacent platform, it really was disgraceful that it stood there with locked doors for a full minute and then left without us. Nobody will ever convince me that allowing those people to board, at that time of night, would have caused operating problems so big that it justified refusing entry to those 40 people. And yes, these things happen all over the country, very often, to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's when people are physically at the train, having arrived from another, trying to board but the doors are locked and it departs without them, that is really galling. You might think Birmingham to Euston would be a big no-no for holding the train for a few seconds, but I once sat on a Euston train and watched as some 20 hapless passengers arrived on an Aberstwyth train on an adjacent platform and tried to board. Alas for them the doors were locked, and stayed locked for about a minute before the train moved off without them. This was all very well, but we then stood for 5 minutes at Rugby waiting for time. People on the train had already been commenting at Birmingham when the passengers were refused entry, and they noticed again when we stood at Rugby. People aren't stupid, they do notice when rail services appear to treat passengers badly, and it really does influence their future transport mode of choice.

Yes it's galling. I've been on the wrong end of that myself a few times.

New Street is a problem location (one among many) where late departures have knock-on effects. That the train had to sit time at Rugby is neither here nor there, because if it hadn't got out of New Street on time it would have delayed the departure and arrival of other services which, at a busy location like that, soon spreads. I find the XX22 departures to Stansted Airport problematic because they are often delayed leaving New Street while waiting for other trains to get out of the way, and will remain late-running all the way to Peterborough where there is sufficient dwell time.

And this is the issue. You hold a train for a few people and the ripples spread across the whole network. How many other rail sceptics might there be waiting for trains that they'd rather not catch, expecting to be disappointed with their experience? We just don't know. All we can do is to run an on-time railway as best as we're able in an endeavour to inconvenience the absolute minimum of people. We cannot be responsible for the travelling decisions of the public, but having trains arrive and depart at the time we say they will is a big part of gaining their trust and showing rail as a realistic alternative to road.

 

[AlterEgo]

This thread is, predictably, peppered with justifications for trains departing on time irrespective of who might be trying to board (or make a presumed connection). What goes less noticed by so many defenders of rail operations, is comments such as that made by the OP that his wife will revert to the M5 after her unsatisfactory rail experience. This distrust of rail journeys, generally borne out by similar experiences, is a lot more prevalent in the minds of road users than our rail planners seem to realise.

What’s your solution? Run the trains routinely late?

The only way to try to resolve this tension is to try hard to prevent missed connections by ensuring things are on time in the first place.

It's when people are physically at the train, having arrived from another, trying to board but the doors are locked and it departs without them, that is really galling. You might think Birmingham to Euston would be a big no-no for holding the train for a few seconds, but I once sat on a Euston train and watched as some 20 hapless passengers arrived on an Aberstwyth train on an adjacent platform and tried to board. Alas for them the doors were locked, and stayed locked for about a minute before the train moved off without them. This was all very well, but we then stood for 5 minutes at Rugby waiting for time. People on the train had already been commenting at Birmingham when the passengers were refused entry, and they noticed again when we stood at Rugby. People aren't stupid, they do notice when rail services appear to treat passengers badly, and it really does influence their future transport mode of choice.

Nobody denies that this happens. It does. Most people who’ve used the railway often have seen this at least once. The train departed on time, kept very good time and then waited for a slot later in the trip. Yep, that happens.

Before you suggest that holding the train should be done everywhere - bear in mind that even if all the passengers are at the train door, it will take about 90-120 seconds to board them all and complete dispatch.

Go down to New Street, open up the signalling diagrams on your phone on Traksy, get to a southbound Pendo and obstruct its doors from closing for two minutes while it’s got a proceed aspect and the RA. Then look at your signalling map and look at the several other trains, which may hold 1500-2000 people, you’re also making late.

This is not a simple question of “hold the train otherwise it makes people cry”, unfortunately.

 

[Llanigraham]

It's when people are physically at the train, having arrived from another, trying to board but the doors are locked and it departs without them, that is really galling. You might think Birmingham to Euston would be a big no-no for holding the train for a few seconds, but I once sat on a Euston train and watched as some 20 hapless passengers arrived on an Aberstwyth train on an adjacent platform and tried to board. Alas for them the doors were locked, and stayed locked for about a minute before the train moved off without them. This was all very well, but we then stood for 5 minutes at Rugby waiting for time. People on the train had already been commenting at Birmingham when the passengers were refused entry, and they noticed again when we stood at Rugby. People aren't stupid, they do notice when rail services appear to treat passengers badly, and it really does influence their future transport mode of choice.


Many on time departures are understandable, but although you might find it hard to believe, some rail staff have little comprehension of when it's reasonable to hold a train for a few seconds, and when it isn't. When I arrived into Eastleigh at 11.00pm on a heavily delayed ex Waterloo train and 40 of us tried to board the Portsmouth train on the adjacent platform, it really was disgraceful that it stood there with locked doors for a full minute and then left without us. Nobody will ever convince me that allowing those people to board, at that time of night, would have caused operating problems so big that it justified refusing entry to those 40 people. And yes, these things happen all over the country, very often, to a greater or lesser extent.

Sorry, but I don't know of anyone who could get from the usual platform the Cambrian trian arrives at to the usual platform the Euston leaves from in 1 minute. It needs atleast 5 minutes even if you don't use the B end.
If the train had been held at New St then the delay at Rugby would probably have been even longer!

And as has been explained numerous times in this thread, by actual platform staff, they cannot hold trains on a whim, as you seem to expect, but have to have authority from Control.

 

[Annetts key]

Pardon me, but what’s “a connection”?

I was under the impression that such a thing no longer exists in the way it did when it was BR. Certainly you don’t see them in timetables any more.

There are connections shown in this GWR timetable…
Link. Also attached.
The connections are shown in light type.

Before you suggest that holding the train should be done everywhere - bear in mind that even if all the passengers are at the train door, it will take about 90-120 seconds to board them all and complete dispatch.

The trouble is, there are many stations where public timetables show the departure time as being either the same as the arrival time, or two or less minutes different. Including the linked to/attached timetable.

Even if the train is running on time, someone with a bicycle or a disabled passenger could well take two minutes to alight or board the train.

The amount of time it actually takes for ‘station duties’ is highly variable. If the train is nowhere near full, and only around ten or less passengers are alighting or boarding, if none of them have luggage or bicycles, or are disabled, it can take 30 seconds or less.

Conversely, if the train is busy (meaning three quarters or more full) and there are lots of passengers wanting to alight or board, plus people with luggage, bicycles or one or more disabled passengers, it can take three minutes or more for station duties to be completed.

With the current timetabling, I’m sorry to say that the railway just sets itself up to plan to fail. If you then add in the limitations of the infrastructure, well, it’s not really surprising that our so called train performance is pathetic.

Not a total solution, but as I said earlier, longer station dwell times and all trains having bigger (longer) allowances would help at least a little. Plus longer turnaround times at terminating stations. Then it would be easier to maintain trains to the planned timetable. Hence less late trains.

And if we want to run a complex service, money should be spent on making junctions more flexible, rather than going for the cheapest simplest layout. Including parallel/multiple/alternate routes over/through the junctions. Where possible, consideration should be given to improving the infrastructure at known bottlenecks. Including bidirectional signalling.

Improved journey times by having higher line speeds and faster, better performing trains is great. But not if this biases the high speed services to have tight timetables and such a high priority that it messes up other services on a routine basis.

I mean, even with the reduced timetable that we have, look at the current figures (as at 04:51)
PPM 57.9%, punctuality 64.5%, cancellation 13.5%. Note that I’ve not looked into why they are so bad at the moment. Is it any wonder that passengers are unhappy?

 

[Bluejays]

I use trains regularly, to commute to work most days, travelling to see family, for watching football or rugby most weekends. I don't want every journey to take substantially longer because of extra dwell times at stations. I value getting to places in as short a time as possible. I also work on trains, and am pretty sure that a hefty percentage of travellers would agree. Add 10 minutes per trip to a commuters journey and thats nearly 2 hours a week extra they are sitting on a train.

This whole thread is based on a ridiculous situation anyway. The op couldn't even be bothered to ask the guard if they could try and arrange a connection.

 

[Falcon1200]

IMHO control are sometimes the cause of problems getting worse because of the time it takes for a decision to be made, or where they fail to take the local situation into account. The number of times I have heard signallers comment on an unsatisfactory control decision is rather large.

Please bear in mind that the Signaller's responsibility and knowledge is confined to their own area, whereas Control has to consider the bigger picture and reactionary effects tens and sometimes hundreds of miles away, plus factors completely irrelevant to Signallers such as Traincrew and set workings, maintenance requirements, and yes, sometimes even connections ! There is also not an individual Controller for each Signalbox or Signalling Centre, they are responsible for far larger areas.

We (the railway) are also not very good at communicating to our customers (the passengers). It should be made crystal clear if a connection is never guaranteed, or if it may be maintained. With it clearly explained on what they should do if the train they are on is running behind schedule.

Connections cannot ever be 'guaranteed' - Because trains can be severely delayed, for any number of reasons. But I do agree that on late running services, the Guard (if there is one) should endeavour to establish if passengers do have onward connections, and to be fair |I have seen this myself on delayed trains, but it does of course depend very much on staffing availability, time, and the busyness of the train, so is much more likely to occur on long distance services rather than local or commuter trains, as per the OP's experience.

 

[The Planner]

Increasing a dwell still isnt going to stop this happening though. Missing your 10 minute connection now just means there will be times you miss the now 12 minute connection.

 

[Shrop]

What’s your solution? Run the trains routinely late?

The only way to try to resolve this tension is to try hard to prevent missed connections by ensuring things are on time in the first place.

Nobody denies that this happens. It does. Most people who’ve used the railway often have seen this at least once. The train departed on time, kept very good time and then waited for a slot later in the trip. Yep, that happens.

Before you suggest that holding the train should be done everywhere - bear in mind that even if all the passengers are at the train door, it will take about 90-120 seconds to board them all and complete dispatch.

Go down to New Street, open up the signalling diagrams on your phone on Traksy, get to a southbound Pendo and obstruct its doors from closing for two minutes while it’s got a proceed aspect and the RA. Then look at your signalling map and look at the several other trains, which may hold 1500-2000 people, you’re also making late.

This is not a simple question of “hold the train otherwise it makes people cry”, unfortunately.

I'm not sure why you would ask me to have a solution? The point is that the aspirations of the rail authorities and Government are not thought through properly, ie you CANNOT keep squeezing more and more out of the same infrastructure without serious investment.
Management and politicians will forever complain of cutbacks, so what do we expect? Something always has to give, which for our railways is all too often reliability. But, I maintain that there are too many times when the lack of knowledge of staff fails customers, which sadly reflects in those excellent other staff who do a superb job in very difficult circumstances. Government needs to recognise the need for investment in railways, but when there has been so much disquiet about the badly conceived HS2, then what hope do we have?

Sorry, but I don't know of anyone who could get from the usual platform the Cambrian trian arrives at to the usual platform the Euston leaves from in 1 minute. It needs atleast 5 minutes even if you don't use the B end.
If the train had been held at New St then the delay at Rugby would probably have been even longer!

And as has been explained numerous times in this thread, by actual platform staff, they cannot hold trains on a whim, as you seem to expect, but have to have authority from Control.

That's exactly my point, there is no room for reasonable discretion. Of course you wouldn't expect to hold the Euston train if a bridge crossing is needed, but when it's on the adjacent platform and there are known to be 5 minutes available just up the line then waiting for 1 minute doesn't seem too unreasonable. And yes, I do know about all the other implications of the precious minute, but that doesn't seem to matter for westbound services at Coventry where a stopper is often allowed out in front of a fast that is already at the platform, which then costs far more than just one minute.

 

[dk1]

Always nice when you make a connection but I never absolutely depend upon it else I’d be forever disappointed. I quite understand the operational knock on effects this causes. I do however get an enormous kick when I make a minus connection for whatever reason & thanks to the likes of realtime trains & other you can be poised & ready at the connecting station & then be ahead of schedule.

 

[tspaul26]

You might think Birmingham to Euston would be a big no-no for holding the train for a few seconds, but I once sat on a Euston train and watched as some 20 hapless passengers arrived on an Aberstwyth train on an adjacent platform and tried to board. Alas for them the doors were locked, and stayed locked for about a minute before the train moved off without them. This was all very well, but we then stood for 5 minutes at Rugby waiting for time.

A route that in normal times has six trains an hour (if you include connections at Rugby and Northampton) with ‘fast’ trains every 20mins.

Ultimately, you are suggesting that for the sake of 20 passengers the entire train should have been delayed for at least 2-3 minutes, with a route set blocking the station throat and which then potentially missed its path and runs behind time all the way to Euston, leading to other passengers already on the train missing their own connections later.

Your approach would have meant every single passenger suffered delay for the sake of getting 20 people to London about 15mins earlier than if they had simply caught the next service. This is utterly disproportionate.

Not a total solution, but as I said earlier, longer station dwell times and all trains having bigger (longer) allowances would help at least a little. Plus longer turnaround times at terminating stations. Then it would be easier to maintain trains to the planned timetable. Hence less late trains.

This would require more stock, more platforms and extend all journey times which will in itself put people off using the train.

London to Edinburgh/Glasgow is currently (typically) timed for about 4.5hrs. Add in at least two extra minutes dwell for six intermediate stops plus 15mins of allowances and you’re now pushing five hours.

Or consider the Cross City Line between Lichfield Trent Valley and Birmingham New Street. Add 1min extra dwell at each intermediate station and the journey time increases from 41mins to 52mins - over 25% more. At that rate, the bus starts to become the same speed or quicker from many places en route.

And if this train still runs late, should connecting services still be held?

All of these proposals entail delaying everyone all of the time for the benefit of a small minority of passengers who have missed a connection (even if through no fault of their own).

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not sure why you would ask me to have a solution? The point is that the aspirations of the rail authorities and Government are not thought through properly, ie you CANNOT keep squeezing more and more out of the same infrastructure without serious investment.
Management and politicians will forever complain of cutbacks, so what do we expect? Something always has to give, which for our railways is all too often reliability. But, I maintain that there are too many times when the lack of knowledge of staff fails customers, which sadly reflects in those excellent other staff who do a superb job in very difficult circumstances. Government needs to recognise the need for investment in railways, but when there has been so much disquiet about the badly conceived HS2, then what hope do we have?


That's exactly my point, there is no room for reasonable discretion. Of course you wouldn't expect to hold the Euston train if a bridge crossing is needed, but when it's on the adjacent platform and there are known to be 5 minutes available just up the line then waiting for 1 minute doesn't seem too unreasonable. And yes, I do know about all the other implications of the precious minute, but that doesn't seem to matter for westbound services at Coventry where a stopper is often allowed out in front of a fast that is already at the platform, which then costs far more than just one minute.

But that minute does matter at New Street, as I explained last night.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure why you would ask me to have a solution? The point is that the aspirations of the rail authorities and Government are not thought through properly, ie you CANNOT keep squeezing more and more out of the same infrastructure without serious investment.

But we are where we are - we have a very busy network with a lot of pressure on the infrastructure (even during covid this is still an issue). This thread is about why trains aren’t routinely held, and yes, part of the issue is that there are myriad conflicting train moves at many places on the network. That’s going to be an issue regardless of whether you spend a billion pounds on redesigning station throats or not.

Management and politicians will forever complain of cutbacks, so what do we expect? Something always has to give, which for our railways is all too often reliability.

The railway will always be designed around two things: political objectives and passenger demand. I have some sympathy for the proposal that trains might be timetabled, nationally, in a very slack way so that more connections might be maintained.

However, when the national passenger survey routinely tells those who make the decisions that people are happier with the speed of the journey than they are with poor train punctuality, there is really only one way to sensibly run the railways.

But, I maintain that there are too many times when the lack of knowledge of staff fails customers, which sadly reflects in those excellent other staff who do a superb job in very difficult circumstances.

No disagreement here!

 

[SteveM70]

Apologies if this has been answered already, but having skim-read through I can’t see anything

The OP mentioned that the passenger should have sought out the conductor on the inbound train and asked them to start the process of getting the connection held. Someone then asked “how does that work in a DOO world” and the answers were from the perspective of the connecting train. What about the if the inbound train? Presumably there is nothing of any consequence the passenger can do other than send a tweet which may or may not elicit an answer along the lines of “did you make your connection?” a few hours later

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

If a guard or despatcher well-meaningly held a train for a couple of minutes, could they be disciplined?

Can anything be done to stop people running on stations, platforms, stairs especially?

 

[Annetts key]

This would require more stock, more platforms and extend all journey times which will in itself put people off using the train.

London to Edinburgh/Glasgow is currently (typically) timed for about 4.5hrs. Add in at least two extra minutes dwell for six intermediate stops plus 15mins of allowances and you’re now pushing five hours.

Or consider the Cross City Line between Lichfield Trent Valley and Birmingham New Street. Add 1min extra dwell at each intermediate station and the journey time increases from 41mins to 52mins - over 25% more. At that rate, the bus starts to become the same speed or quicker from many places en route.

And if this train still runs late, should connecting services still be held?

All of these proposals entail delaying everyone all of the time for the benefit of a small minority of passengers who have missed a connection (even if through no fault of their own).

And where did I suggest adding two minutes for every train at every station? And where did I suggest adding 15 minutes of allowances to every train?
And I never suggested that all trains should be held for connections.

I’ve often seen long distance trains often loose time where there are station stops, but where there are no known incidents. If the service is often running late and the cause is not enough time allocated to station duties, which is better, ignore it, or do something about it?

Similarly, some services can be affected in busy junction areas. So if this is a regular occurrence, is not adding a one minute allowance reasonable?

The timetable has to realistic. Not some kind of fantasy document.

 

[The Planner]

The timetable has to realistic. Not some kind of fantasy document.

Delay attribution will flag where it doesnt work in terms of Q coded delay. Lots of work has been done on sub threshold or ZZ delay too. I don't have figures but it would be interesting to see how much as a proportion of total delay is attributed to it.

 

[O L Leigh]

The timetable has to realistic. Not some kind of fantasy document.

In a lot of ways pertinent to this thread, I feel that it already is realistic. "Air" often appears in the timings of services, whether because it's a fast train in amongst slower one which gives it a bit of headway or at certain locations where there is adequate dwell time to claw back some or all of a delay accrued so far. In those instances you do get a bit of leeway with things like station stops, but this is normally away from interchanges for obvious reasons. As a driver you know which sections of the route are timed to the minute and where there is a bit of time to play with.

That said, there are nodal points where it's all about throughput, and rightly so. Places like New Street can easily be likened to Heathrow airport where departure control is all about getting planes down the runway and into the air as fast as possible and it's the job of the next controller (who I believe is referred to as "the catcher") to actually get the planes heading the way they need to be heading. When a train passes through these points it really has to be on time otherwise it starts to affect other services, and that includes in-bound local/regional services bringing in connecting passengers. If a train dwells in the platform for longer than it ought it blocks an arrival.

I agree that there is more than an aspect of trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. But, like many other processes, the railway works best when it's operating at maximum efficiency without delays. The quart will fit without overflowing provided that the pint pot is being drained at the same or greater rate.

 

[SteveM70]

Places like New Street can easily be likened to Heathrow airport where departure control is all about getting planes down the runway and into the air as fast as possible

Is that true though?

Plenty of trains have longer dwell times at New Street than the minimum needed to get passengers off and on.

Looking at RTT now I can see XC services with planned dwell times of 4, 9 and 6 minutes.

I’d argue that long distance trains are deliberately timetabled with longer waits so that they have a greater chance of departing on time.

 

[O L Leigh]

Is that true though?

Plenty of trains have longer dwell times at New Street than the minimum needed to get passengers off and on.

Looking at RTT now I can see XC services with planned dwell times of 4, 9 and 6 minutes.

I’d argue that long distance trains are deliberately timetabled with longer waits so that they have a greater chance of departing on time.

But that's precisely my point. When it's time to go, the train has to go otherwise it causes delays to other services. The timetable gives it a slot for departure, so holding it for an in-bound service will mean that it misses that slot. The length of timetabled dwell time has nothing to do with it.

 

[SteveM70]

But that's precisely my point. When it's time to go, the train has to go otherwise it causes delays to other services. The timetable gives it a slot for departure, so holding it for an in-bound service will mean that it misses that slot. The length of timetabled dwell time has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough. I read it as “in and out as quick as possible”