|
Title: Pathing Priorities Post by: PhilWakely on September 20, 2014, 14:57:43 Earlier today, reading this forum, I picked up the following comment...
Was on the 1430 PAD to WSM routed via Newbury. All was going well - the local to Bedwyn was held for 5 mins at Newbury to let us through, a stone train was looped just ahead of us, so just a touch on the brakes, and we approached the Westbury area scheduled to arrive into Bath Spa just 2 down. Really slick work. Well done everyone! Then we got to Hawkeridge Jn and Westbury panel let a late running (6 down) Warminster to Malvern just ahead of us, calling at all stations to BRI. We had caught it up by Trowbridge. Result, we duly arrived into BRI 24 down. I've seen this happen before at this location with exactly the same consequence - on that occasion we were actually held at the junction for around 2 minutes to let the stopper past. How can anyone decide that it's better to let a stopper through (already late) than delay it for no more than a further 2 minutes and avoid a 20+ min delay on a class 1 service run by the same TOC? Especially when further up the line, an effort appears to have been made to take some sensible decisions for the greater good. Which was all then ruined. I had to meet a friend earlier at Exeter St Davids off 1C79 Paddington to Plymouth, which arrived 6 minutes late at 1341. Whilst waiting, I was watching the arrival/departure boards and was intrigued as 1C79 seemed to be swapping places with XC 1V50 Edinburgh to Plymouth. They both arrived in correct timetable sequence, but 1C79 appeared to be held to let 1V50 pass (via Platform 5). There was nothing apparently wrong with 1C79 and both were scheduled to stop only at Newton Abbot, Totnes and Plymouth. If there was nothing amiss with 1C79, why delay it further to let another service through which was also running similarly late and stopping at the same places? Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: grahame on September 20, 2014, 15:30:48 If there was nothing amiss with 1C79, why delay it further to let another service through which was also running similarly late and stopping at the same places? 1V50 took 56 minutes from leaving Exeter to arriving in Plymouth (arriving there just 1 minute late, having made up time), but 1C79 took 62 minutes. Similar lateness, similar stopping places, but perhaps different train types with different acceleration curves from each stop, with the better performing train being given priority? Result - just one train technically late into Plymouth rather than 2! Just a guess Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: readytostart on September 20, 2014, 16:11:32 1C79 sat at EXD for almost ten minutes due to a luggage issue apparently, guessing that 1V50 got the TRTS before 1C79.
Log entry: Incidents and Delays Impact Description 9 mins EXETSTDAV - PLYMTH (Ref 820795) RU LUGGAGE 2 EXD 1C79 LUGGAGE ISSUE EXD 3 mins BEDWYN - WOODBORO (Ref 820633) RZ STN OTHER LA63 PEW 1C79 3 OVERTIME PEW Incident 820795 Delays 9 mins EXETSTDAV Log 1C79 LUGGAGE ISSUE EXD AS ADVISED BY EXD SIG 1356 - CUSTOMERS TRYING TO LOCATE BAG - REFUSING TO GET OFF TRAIN WITHOUT IT THEN 1C79 YG 1V50 DOLR Delay code RU = locating lost luggage Delay code YG = regulated in accordance with regulation policy Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: PhilWakely on September 20, 2014, 17:05:57 1C79 sat at EXD for almost ten minutes due to a luggage issue apparently, guessing that 1V50 got the TRTS before 1C79. Incident 820795 Delays 9 mins EXETSTDAV Log 1C79 LUGGAGE ISSUE EXD AS ADVISED BY EXD SIG 1356 - CUSTOMERS TRYING TO LOCATE BAG - REFUSING TO GET OFF TRAIN WITHOUT IT THEN 1C79 YG 1V50 DOLR Delay code RU = locating lost luggage Delay code YG = regulated in accordance with regulation policy So, a genuine, if unfortunate, reason for a later train getting priority. I hope the passenger involved gets reunited with their missing luggage [ onboard CCTV ??] Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: phile on September 20, 2014, 21:00:04 I remember in the pre-privatisation days that if a Western Region and a Cross Country train were both approaching Westerleigh Jn at the same time, Bristol Panel always seemed to give the WR train priority.
Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: Oberon on September 21, 2014, 07:06:16 When travelling north from Bristol to Birmingham, which I do from time to time, it is a common state of affairs for a Cross Country service to find itself put behind a stopper from Redditch, crawling along from Barnt Green all the way to New Street. I suppose this can only get worse
Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: John R on September 21, 2014, 09:19:54 Given there are 6 tph on the Cross City line it's almost inevitable that will happen, so I wouldn't be critical of the signallers for that.
Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: grahame on September 21, 2014, 10:18:48 Given there are 6 tph on the Cross City line it's almost inevitable that will happen, so I wouldn't be critical of the signallers for that. A dozen or so Cross Country trains per day already use the Birmingham Grand Junction - St Andrew's Junction - Bordesley Junction - Lifford East Junction - Kings Norton Junction route. Perhaps more will go that way in future to the extent that it gets removed from the Passenger Train Services over Unusual Lines list at http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2014.htm ... and there are a couple that run via Galton Junction and Smethwick West according to that list too - not that the lines are likely to be busy via University at 05:00! Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: brompton rail on September 21, 2014, 11:14:12 However there are 7 trains per hour - in each direction - using the Midland Railway double track East of Proof House Junction, let alone the two southernmost tracks into New Street. Bristol towards Derby trains would need to reverse in New Street's narrow platforms. Although XC change drivers and conductors at New Street it is handy for departing staff to be able to communicate with the new staff. Not a problem with an easy or obvious solution!
Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: Super Guard on September 21, 2014, 11:39:45 1C79 sat at EXD for almost ten minutes due to a luggage issue apparently, guessing that 1V50 got the TRTS before 1C79. Incident 820795 Delays 9 mins EXETSTDAV Log 1C79 LUGGAGE ISSUE EXD AS ADVISED BY EXD SIG 1356 - CUSTOMERS TRYING TO LOCATE BAG - REFUSING TO GET OFF TRAIN WITHOUT IT THEN 1C79 YG 1V50 DOLR Delay code RU = locating lost luggage Delay code YG = regulated in accordance with regulation policy So, a genuine, if unfortunate, reason for a later train getting priority. I hope the passenger involved gets reunited with their missing luggage [ onboard CCTV ??] No CCTV on HSTs... Although wonder how sympathetic other passengers would have been if the delay caused connections to be missed at Plymouth due to a bag? In this case ;D, I was under the impression that the train doesn't wait if customer refuses to leave and is taken to the next stop and authorised back once reunited with baggage. Good customer service for the 1 or the many? Also a side note, once you get past Newton Abbot, the signalling sections are quite long, so even if 2 voyagers are following each other, the second one will naturally drop time. This is the reason why the 09:35 EXD-PNZ unit has a no hold policy for connections off the 07:06 PAD-PGN, as any hold will delay the XC voyager behind between NTA & PLY. (This obviously won't be an issue after December with the 07:06 running to PZ). Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: brompton rail on September 21, 2014, 12:03:34 If there was nothing amiss with 1C79, why delay it further to let another service through which was also running similarly late and stopping at the same places? 1V50 took 56 minutes from leaving Exeter to arriving in Plymouth (arriving there just 1 minute late, having made up time), but 1C79 took 62 minutes. Similar lateness, similar stopping places, but perhaps different train types with different acceleration curves from each stop, with the better performing train being given priority? Result - just one train technically late into Plymouth rather than 2! Just a guess Ignoring the reasons why the trains were disrupted on that particular day, I believe that XC service is also an HST. As XC sets have only 7 coaches I imagine theirs could accelerate slightly better than FGW, though the long block sections would still delay the following train. As far as I am aware XC's HSTs do have CCTV in their HSTs. Sorry to be a pedant, 'cause really I ain't! Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: John R on September 21, 2014, 12:32:52 ... and there are a couple that run via Galton Junction and Smethwick West according to that list too - not that the lines are likely to be busy via University at 05:00! Route knowledge refreshers no doubt, in the event of the line via Bromsgrove being unavailable. Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: Super Guard on September 21, 2014, 14:54:50 Ignoring the reasons why the trains were disrupted on that particular day, I believe that XC service is also an HST. As XC sets have only 7 coaches I imagine theirs could accelerate slightly better than FGW, though the long block sections would still delay the following train. As far as I am aware XC's HSTs do have CCTV in their HSTs. Sorry to be a pedant, 'cause really I ain't! You are correct I believe re: XC HSTs... but of course 1C79 is a FGW HST and no FGW HST has CCTV. I'll see your comment and raise you this: if CCTV was fitted, it would not have helped finding a case while the train was sat in a platform. The acceleration of a 7 HST vs 8 HST vs Voyager would have nothing to do with this and I imagine FGW control would not be too impressed with their service being delayed just because the XC HST had one less coach. Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: brompton rail on September 21, 2014, 15:31:11 I agree CCTV wouldn't help with finding "lost" luggage. Notices advising passengers to keep their luggage with them at all times are equally as unhelpful!
Having left luggage (once a camera bag with camera and lenses, once an attach^ case with 'mock' exam papers in it and once a SAINSBURY's carrier bag with groceries!) on trains, I have some slight simpathy with the luggage looser. However on all three occasions I didn't delay the train, perhaps mainly because the train was departing before I realised my loss. I can report, however, that I got back two of the three lost articles. The camera went from York to Edinburgh and was retrieved by the cleaners there - returned following day in the care of a guard- BR days of course. The SAINSBURY's shopping went from Hathersage to Manchester Piccadilly and returned on the next working of the set (also BR days). The brief case with exam papers disappeared somewhere between Worcester FS and Hereford in Central days. Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: readytostart on September 22, 2014, 20:17:41 Just a matter to put to bed, XC HSTs have no CCTV!
Title: Re: Pathing Priorities Post by: thetrout on September 23, 2014, 16:08:53 CrossCountry trains do get a certain priority IIRC in regards to signalling because they are extremely vulnerable to delay.
So letting the XC service out first so it can make up time would make sense if it were to form a service back to Leeds or York etc. A 5 minute delay leaving Dundee can easily turn into a 45 minute delay by Bristol Temple Meads if you're not careful... As I have seen happen numerous times :-X This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |