Great Western Coffee Shop

Apologies for the deliberately naff headline!  ;)

From Monday there will be a 3-month trial meaning that all terminating Turbo services at Oxford on Platform 2 will go all the way down to the very far end of the platform before letting passengers off.  Doesn't matter if it's a 2-car Turbo or an 2+8 HST, they will all stop at the VT 8/10 stop board (a remnent for when Virgin operated XC services) located about a coach length from the northern extent of the platform.

The reason being that anything immediately behind formed of 6 coaches or less can then be allowed in the platform behind permissevely as it is thought this will save delay minutes when Turbos are sat in platform two waiting to be confirmed as empty before heading off into the sidings.

So, that means an unnecessary walk of up to 140 metres, just to get to the footbridge, along a totally uncovered section of the platform on around 3 arrivals per hour.  A pretty unapetising prospect at the best of times, but imagine if it's pouring down with rain or you have mobilility problems or heavy luggage and small children etc.?

Bearing in mind the vast majority of terminating arrivals don't have any other trains close behind anyway, this, in my opinion, is the worst example of a desperate attempt to save delays.  Inconvieniencing passengers and staff alike for very dubious benefit.

An alternative, and sensible, approach would be for the Signaller to send a quick radio call to the driver requesting he pulled up to the far end on the odd occasion it might prove useful, but, no, we have this all-or-nothing initiative instead, which I haven't heard a single person on the ground think is a good idea.  I despair sometimes!

XC services generally follow the terminsting turbos, which are generally a few (at least!) minutes late, and the XC almost always waiting at the Home signal for the down platform.

So I suspect XC pressure on FGW bia transfer of delay minutes

According to rumour it was a request from XC's MD to Mark Hopwood.  Sounds like a classic case of somebody having to do something to please the boss!

BTW, in actual fact the XC service don't follow the terminating Turbos closely at all.  XC services depart at xx:07 and xx:36 with terminating fast services (sometimes HST's, sometimes Turbos) due in at xx:48 and xx:18 (with the odd minute or two difference here or there).  So that's over 15 minutes of a gap.  Terminating slow services are due in at xx:14 and xx:41 just behind the XC services having waited around 5 minutes at Didcot to allow them to overtake.

That's why it's such a mad idea, as it will very rarely help with delays at all - unless the XC service is running late and is immediately behind the terminating stopping service, in which case a quick call from the Signaller as I suggested would be enough.

I'm often waiting for an XC and a terminator comes in. Guess they're often late then, and not held at Didcot for some reason to let XC past there on the avoiding line.

Oh dear oh dear. Either this is a very late April Fool Insider, or you've had a long session on the ale :) What a daft idea. At least there are plenty of bikes in Oxford, so perhaps a cycle rack can be left at the far end of platform 2 for passengers to cycle down to the footbridge. And the station staff will no doubt take some flak from fed-up passengers venting their comments.

Hey! At least it will redistribute pax from the front car to the rear car!

With any luck they'll vent their frustrations towards Customer Services and get the whole silly idea stopped well before the 3-month trial is up!

What would the SHRUG have to say if this happened at Southampton?

Passengers DUMPED at end of platform for OPERATIONAL CONVENIENCE

 :D

Whatever next?!

This was suggested four years ago when the local stoppers preceded the XCs from Didcot, and the XCs were often held outside Oxford waiting for platform 2 to become free. NR even produced new stop boards (which were never used, thank goodness), but the one good thing that came out of that episode was that permissive working was restored. The signalling allowed permissive working, but it had been banned following an accident on the up platform some years ago - it seems that drivers could not be trusted not to run into a train in front!

With the timetable change (which saw the XCs precede the stoppers from Didcot), there was no advantage to be gained by having the stoppers pull up to the far end of platform 2.

So why do it now?

It was resisted four years ago because:

- passengers alighting at Oxford would have to walk along an exposed platform to get back to the footbridge.

- customers boarding  services going forward from platform 2 (some Banbury stoppers and turbos (and Adelantes)) to the Cotswolds would stop at the far end of platform 2 and customers would have to walk and wait at the far end of the platform, whatever the weather, with no shelter.

- it was entirely possible that there would be additional delays, as customers ran down the platform to catch the train. God help the dispatcher that sent off a Cotswold service as Charlbury man was making his way down the platform!

- The norm is to have only one dispatcher on the platform. This proposal meant that he or she would spend most of their time at the far end of the platform, and therefore unable to deliver service to customers arriving on the platform from the footbridge.  This would also create delays.

- Last time this was proposed, XC were not prepared to have their customers inconvenienced by having their trains stop at the far end of the platform. It will be interesting to see if they also participate this time around. If they do, I predict chaos. If they don't, then questions will be asked.

Utter madness!

Funny how XC never made any arrangements to accommodate FGW a few years back when the xx16 southbound XC service routinely delayed the xx21 stopper and more often than not resulted in the Didcot connection for the west being missed!

It really must be April. They're going to take a train-load of passengers and dump them at the unroofed north end of the platform in driving rain? I think not.


.

Cotswold Line services follow very closely behind - all the more so when terminating slow trains amble in three or four minutes behind time, followed by the pantomime I describe below in terms of despatching empty Turbos.

Sorry Chris, but as someone who day after day sees what goes on, a terminating slow service arriving ahead of a delayed XC service is a rare occurrence - perhaps they arrange it just for you - and if this does happen, the Oxford signallers often use the bi-directional signalling to put the terminating service into platform 1 to get it out of the way, unless that will mess up a southbound XC.

The trains that get delayed, day after day, are the Cotswold Line services, which are booked to follow the stoppers from Didcot. The Cotswold trains are what get stuck outside the station while the ludicrously slow process of despatching an empty Turbo goes on. The 18.17 and 18.54 departures from Oxford (and the 19.23 due to a silly bunching of trains just ahead of it) often fall victim to delays in this way - on Friday the 18.17 lost five minutes at Oxford because the 18.13 arrival from Paddington (I assume the working timetable actually allows more of a margin than the public timetable's four-minute gap), running just ahead of it, was late.

For many years, the dispatchers used to stand at the south end of platform 2 then walk through a Turbo to the front, checking it was empty. Recently, they have instead started boarding next to the footbridge steps, walking though to the back of the trains, then walking up the platform, locking the doors with the buttons on the coach ends, before reaching the front of the train and finally telling the driver he can go into the sidings. And the signallers don't always assist matters here, with the shunting signal for the move to the sidings sometimes not being cleared until after the dispatchers have completed their time-consuming routine.

If they really want to get empty trains out of the platform fast, these are the places they should be looking at to make changes, not silly notions that do nothing to assist Cotswold Line HSTs that will still be stuck at the signal south of Botley Road, because they are too long to fit on the platform behind a Turbo.

Of course, this was not much of an issue, at least for Cotswold trains, until a couple of years ago when the timetable was rejigged to put the stoppers out of Didcot ahead of the FGW fasts. Who came up with that clever wheeze?

As for assisting XC, they have got a cheek, considering how often their trains arrive late, messing up FGW services, or the XC trains that have a timing allowance, eating up platform time at Oxford, even though their journey only started at Reading.

Oddly enough it happens regularly at Southampton anyway.  Alternate Poole stoppers arrive and layover for 20 mins in 3B, on the same hours XC terminate in platform 2B, so that a SN service can come in straight behind on 2A.  FGW trains terminating at Southampton routinely arrive in 3B 'on top' of the train in 3A, and some off-pattern stoppers from Brockenhurst or Poole terminate at the country end of 2B.  Also on Sundays the Portsmouth - Southampton stopper operates from 3B.

So that would definitely be POOLE passengers DUMPED at far end of platform 3 and XC passengers DUMPED at far end of platform 2, use of platform 2A AXED for OPERATIONAL CONVENIENCE.

Paul

Sadly it's August.  And a wet one so far too, although fortunately (or perhaps sadly to force a premature end to the trial), there's no rain forecast for the beginning of the week.

If they don't draw down to the end of the platform then drivers will be disobeying instructions - even if it's the last arrival in Platform 2 of the night, the 2-car set which arrives at 00:22, long after any of XC's services have been in the area.

As you say Will, it's the evening Cotswold HST's that suffer the most from waiting at the 'Graveyard Halt' signal during a typical day.  And this initiative won't make one hoot of a difference to them!


Indeed.  Apparently "Something had to be done" to stop the very rare occasions when somebody crept on the train without the driver or dispatcher spotting them.  The convuluted method you describe was dreamt up by somebody who's long left Oxford, but we seem stuck with it.


It is only FGW terminating services that will be affected, so nobody will have to wait to board trains out in the open.  Still utter madness though.  I'll keep an eye out and report back tomorrow with how it's going!

I agree with Will. I am not a very frequent traveller to and from Oxford and my returns are off-peak as against Will's peak use.
The number of times I have waited on platform 2 for a terminating Turbo to get away from the platform whilst I can see my CL train waiting at Cemetery Halt are beyond counting. I know they need a number of minutes to check the train through before it goes off into the sidings but far too often the train stands there with everyone waiting (for what I do not know). It has very often been the cause in the past for delayed Up trains at Oxford because the waiting terminating Turbo has delayed the Down CL train that then has delayed the UP train at Ascott. I imagine that is less likely to happen now that there is an extra 4 miles of double track between Ascott and Charlbury.

Well, the trial seems to have survived day one.  A couple of drivers 'forgetting' to go all the way to the end of the platform, but the vast majority did.  Some puzzled looks from the punters as they trapsed down the platform to the footbridge.  I expect those puzzled expressions will turn more angry as they begin to realise it's not just a one-off!

Are the drivers who 'forget' (try to exercise a bit of initiative and common sense?) going to find themselves on the sharp end of a 'please explain'...? I hope not but suspect they probably will eventually.

The details of trains that stop in the right wrong place are being logged and so persistant martyrs offenders will no doubt be spoken to.

A bit of a Blue Peter job with the stitching as I didn't have my camera with a panoramic mode, but here's a mid-afternoon arrival at Oxford complete with a hundred or so poor souls being made to walk down the length of the platform unnecessarily.  Fortunately it wasn't raining. 

The trial has been in effect for a week now, and I've yet to see a single example of where a train has been bought in behind to save these massive ammounts of delays minutes that you'd need to justify this crazy idea.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6037437067_0b01c85a7a_b.jpg)

Bonkers!

So is there a separate track circuit to tell the Oxford signalman that the terminating turbo has drawn down far enough to bring a train in behind? Or is supposed to pop out of his cabin and have a look?

This issue links in with my earlier posts about freight trains being given priority over Oxford stoppers (up and down).  If Network Rail could actually manage to produce a timetable that worked - ie trains (freight and passenger) could run to time - then the stoppers wouldn't arrive late at Oxford.  If trains are consistently running late, then find the cause and deal with it.  If this requires a change to the timetable, then that is what should be done.

I despair of FGW's management for their obsession with saving lost minutes at the expense of customer service - whether it's imposing a long and unneccesary walk exposed to the elements for passengers arriving at Oxford on down stoppers, last minute platform changes at Reading with trains departing before pasengers can get there, etc. 

Does FGW actually care about its passengers? Or are lost minutes more important?

I suspect that XC has priority over FGW slows. THerefore can request that the slows get even later to let their trains pass, adding even further to FGW delay minutes.

So it's that or what we've got.

Lost minutes in this case it would seem - though as I've pointed out none are getting saved anyway!.  Anger, bewilderment and resentment are building amongst the staff and passengers.  Still no heavy rain to really piss people off!

I understand from another forum that although the idea behind this was to stop XC services being delayed they haven't signed up to the trial so their services still pull up in the middle of the platform.  Therefore if the roles are reversed a FGW turbo cannot come in behind it.  Can anyone confirm that?

Yes, I think it's mentioned earlier in the thread, only terminating FGW services are affected.

Is this a case of headcode hierarchy? XC services being 1Xxx and the FGW turbo terminators being 2Xxx?

Nope.  There's plenty of Class 1 FGW terminators that are also affected.  It's purely that they didn't want to get totally lynched by making passengers boarding trains walk/stand out in the elements.

That bit makes sense, I guess....

I'd have given them until 7am on day one if they'd dared to try that!

There are posters around the station making very clear it is only FGW terminating services that are affected, which describes the trial as a joint effort involving FGW, XC and Network Rail. Should you have thoughts on the arrangement, you are invited to pass them on to the station staff...

Another nonsense that has resulted from this is the dispatchers having to go all the way up to the end of the platform to check a Turbo is empty, walking back down the platform to their office next to the footbridge, then re-emerging moments later to go all the way back up there when the following Cotswold Line service - ie the trains that in reality are usually the ones delayed by terminating services, wherever they stop on the platform - is an HST.

And should the glorious moment arrive when a Voyager actually does roll in behind a terminating Turbo, it will still have to sit waiting for the dispatcher to trudge back down to the footbridge area to check the doors are closed before the XC service can be sent on its way.

I did actually see it happen yesterday morning.  I forget whether it was the 07:07 or 08:07 to Newcastle, but it crawled into the platform on time behind a Turbo that had arrived about 3-4 minutes earlier.  After coming to a stand the Turbo could then get the signal into the siding.  From what I could see, the Turbo's doors were shut and it was ready to leave for the sidings much earlier but when a train is signalled in permissively behind then a route can't be set for the sidings.  The Turbo then departed from the north end of the platform after the XC had come to a stop.  When it cleared the route for the XC was set and it departed nearly three minutes late.  Wonderful.

Right then folks, there's a good chance I may end up catching a few of those terminating trains to Oxford when I'm back in those parts in October. Any chance we can get this little farce nixed by then...? Ta ;)  ;D

Which would suggest that it still took five minutes or so to get an empty Turbo off the platform. Not good enough, wherever it pulled up.

That's right.  And judging by the length of time the dispatcher and driver were chatting with the doors shut on the Turbo waiting the signal, I think, in this case at least, it would have been quicker using the old more customer friendly method.  Dread to think what the scenes will be like today with persistant, heavy at times, rain for most of the day.

The time it takes from the arrival of a terminating Turbo at Oxford Platform 2 and it departing into the sidings is, in my view, one of the major causes of Down CL train delays from Oxford. If this new practice eased such delays then all would be good but it seems as though from reports above that little is improved. Lets hope the powers review this practice before too long.

Much has been said about the time it takes to prepare an empty DMU for dispatch to the sidings, so allow me to explain what goes on.

The train has to be empty of customers before it heads to the sidings. That is the condition that determines the process of checking that a train is empty. Why?

Because, if a train goes to the sidings with a customer on board, anything could happen. The worse scenario is that the customer will realise they are stuck on a train, will use the emergency egress switch, and will exit the train, only to be mown down by a passing train. Would you care to be responsible for this scenario?

So, the competency managers, in conjunction with the the station managers, have implemented a system for checking that stock is empty. The dispatcher walks thru the set, making sure every one is off (you would be surprised how many people need to be told its time to get off), then walks back along the outside of the set, checking it is still empty, and locking the carriages (using the knob at the end of the carriage), after which the driver can be given the right away. It is not unusual to find that someone has run down the stairs and jumped on the train, without checking the CIS, so the second check is essential.

Sending a customer to the sidings on an empty stock is a regarded as a safety  incident that has to be reported and investigated. Dispatchers that regularly offend would be in danger of the sack. So it doesn't happen very often.

Four minutes is allowed for the whole process (same for HSTs, but a different process). Thats pretty good going, and is achieved most of the time.

As far as I can see, the station team is between a rock and a hard place. Cut corners and you are likely to be subject to a disciplinary. Follow the safety driven process, and you are asked why it took so long (even if it took less than the allotted time).

Putting the terminators at the far end of the platform can only make things worse!

Having watched the dispatchers at Oxford, what they *actually* do is this....walk through the train front to back, clearing passengers; then walk back up the train on the outside closing doors using the inside door buttons as they pass. Then speak to the driver to say its clear. I guess the driver then locks the doors.

Then the two stand gassing.....which causes the delay.....

The gassing used to go on for several long minutes,. but is better these days.

IS such a convuluted procedure really necessary though?  Up until around 10 years ago a quick check from the outside of the carriage from the back to the front, locking as you went, killed 99.9% of germs dead so to speak.  And took about a minute less.  Reading station, when sending trains to the sidings - i.e. the same potential scenario - don't deem it so necessary, but they are in a position where two or more can check.

I'd be inclined to agree with your post much more if there wasn't such a blatant inconsistency with trains arriving in the bay platform at Oxford and terminating, when all of a sudden it's deemed quite adequate for the driver to check the trains are empty and bugger off to the sidings when they get the road without any dispatch staff in site.  Quieter trains and platforms, yes, but draconian rules for one platform and no rules at all for another is hardly... well, I'll let you make your own minds up!


Any gassing is whilst waiting for the signal to come off most of the time I would guess.

Oh no, sometiomes they gas even with the road given.....for some minutes, just finishing our conversation, gov!....

Not so bad these days, but a year or so ago, the RMT rep would be vbriefing his members there!

Ten years ago it was acceptable to allow 0.1% of germs to escape. Now its not.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not an elfandsafety addict - but the process was changed to attempt to remove any possibility of an overcarry, regardless of the actual risk involved. It could be done quicker, if the risk was accepted and the dispatcher was not disciplined for it (union reps step forward please!).

You are right about Reading - they usually have two staff available so one does the inside whilst the other locks up from the outside. Oxford only has one dispatcher. Incidentally, the competency team regard the Oxford process as best practice - so there!

The arguement about drivers locking out sets is a running sore - its particularly a problem at Reading. Drivers don't like to wait for a dispatcher to check the train, so lock it out themselves and then call the panel to get the road to the depot. When a a passenger is found on board at the depot, they try to blame the station staff!

Of course, the station staff are happy for the driver to self dispatch - less work for them!

No one is questioning that, just the time taken to achieve it.

I have been observing the emptying of Turbos at Oxford for 10 years now and with the previous, simpler, quicker procedure, of dispatchers walking through the train from the back to the front, never, ever saw anyone overcarried, nor indeed saw anyone develop a sudden urge to get back on board behind the dispatcher, which would have meant reopening a set of doors to do so - providing a bit of a clue there was someone on board when the dispatcher looked back down the train before telling the driver to lock the doors and move off.

The odd person running down the footbridge steps in the belief they are missing a train towards Worcester or Banbury always lunges for the door nearest the steps, ie the last one the dispatcher closed when leaving the train under the old method, so again anyone boarding at that point would be spotted and removed.

The competency team may be highly delighted with their preferred procedure but if four minutes is allowed per train, then on the basis of the public timetable, regular delays to the arrivals and departures of a number of Cotswold Line trains are near-inevitable.

And is it competent to operate a procedure that blocks a platform for up to 16 minutes an hour (even longer if the shunt signal is not cleared promptly) at a station with just two through platforms to start with?

It might be okay if trains were more evenly spread across an hour but they aren't, they are bunched up by the timetable in both directons, often with freight trains thrown into the mix as well. Addressing any of these would likely assist punctuality more effectively than inflicting a hike on FGW's passengers, just in case an XC service is late.

Possibly the most often delayed HST is the 1551 PAD-WOS. 

On Thursday 11th August, I witnessed a most crazy situation.  The 1457 PAD-OXF local duly pulled into platform 2, possibly a little before its booked time of 1643.  It pulled right up to the end of the platform, but then it became a farce.  The driver turned off the engines and left his cab.  In the meantime, the platform staff checked the train.  After a delay of about 5 minutes, another driver appeared and took the train into the sidings.  All this time, the calling on signal was off.  For at least 4 minutes, the 1551 ex PAD was waiting at the signal to enter the platform.  It eventually did come in about 4 minutes late and departed at 1651 instead of 1647.  So much for this time saving procedure.

Of course, the 1457 is booked to wait in Platform 3 at Didcot Parkway between1619 and 1625, apparently to allow 1445 Bournemouth to Manchester XC train to overtake it round the Didcot curve.

Two questions come to mind:
1) Why did the driver who brought the train into the platform not take it to the sidings?
2) What is the real benefit of making passengers walk almost 100 yards along the platform, especially if it happens to be tipping down with rain?

A question was asked above why the trains need to be checked.  I noted one delay late in the evening a few weeks ago, when a man had fallen asleep on the incoming train and it took about 5 minutes to wake and remove him.  In the meantime, the 2020 PAD-GMV was waiting for the platform.

Answer to 1)....

Only drivers on a turn with a further trip out of Oxford will take a set to the sidings. A driver who completes his shift on arrival at Oxford will leave his train to be taken to the sidings by either the driver of that trains next trip, or more likely, a shunter.

Where is the drivers' signing on point at Oxford?

Once again - there is no excuse for this sloppy operation.

London Midland terminate 2 tph (up to 4tph peak) at Kidderminster. The train is then sent up to sidings.

The train (up to 6 coaches in peaks) leaves seconds after the commuters have all poured out. The guard simply walks up through the train closing the doors, gets to the end, checks none have been re-opened, locks then, hops off, and the train leaves. There are no platform staff to help (so the same as a DOO train with platform staff).

Anyway - this just demonstrates that OXF needs a new station with 4 through platforms (plus bays). But there's no money - unless it can be tagged onto the GWML modernisation. But that's a new thread...

Over in the drivers mess, whuch I think is behind platform 3

Sounds like another unintended consequence. Drivers are often swapped on arrival of a terminating service at Oxford, with either another mainline driver or the ferryman taking it down to the sidings and bringing it out again for the next up working, where there may be yet another change of driver. The unintended consequence is that whoever dreamt up this plan probably did not take into account the additional walking time for drivers to go to and from the end of the platform, as opposed to the bottom of the footbridge. There is an allowance for walking time between the depot and the platform, and I don't believe it differs depending on the position of the train on the platform. BUT, some drivers like to make the most of it and, if they don't like walking down to the end of the platform, will ensure they are always delayed in some way. No amount of "please explains" will change the situation. Frankly, if it helps to kill off this ridiculous scheme, then so much the better.

Will C, you didn't see any one carted off to the sidings, but it did happen when you were not there. So the system was changed.

I don't think the situation at Kidderminster is comparable. I don't recall seeing lots of people there waiting for the next service - in fact I don't recall seeing many people there at all!

It was never safe to assume that because the doors were closed, that they had not been opened and then closed again after someone had boarded. At least that was my experience.

How is that relevant? We're talking about the procedure here. There is nothing to stop someone running down the ramp or down the footbridge and boarding the train thinking it's going to Worcester. Half the trains don't terminate, and the bright spark at ATOS put the PIS in a position so you can't see what the train is from the ramp/steps/shelters/most of the platform. The announcements are abysmal [ATOS Anne, installed by Central Trains - I rest my case.] and don't assist.

With regards to passenger numbers - for a medium sized town, KID has loads of passenger numbers- the station and trains are always busy - hence up to 6 tph. It's a major stop on B'ham busiest commuter line.

Ok, at OXF there are more passengers (you never would have thought from a city would you?) but you have Ditra announcements: "All change please, all change, this train terminates here." So that completely invalidates your argument!

At KID, the check takes seconds. At OXF it takes minutes. Why?

Nonsense.

The uninitiated, occasional traveller who is in a panic because they don't know the system and have it in their head that they are about to miss their train from platform two is in far too much of a funk to worry about what any platform announcement is saying. And apart from anything else, those announcements are only played immediately preceding the arrival of a train and as it pulls in.

I can well understand why the procedure at Oxford involves checking terminating trains very carefully and frankly I'm slightly surprised that gormless passengers getting carried off to the sidings isn't a more frequent occurrence.

I agree 100%.

An article, courtesy of Willc, in the Oxford Mail:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2011/09/03/Oxford+news+%28om_oxfordnews%29/9230889.Passengers_get_exercise_in_improving_punctuality/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2011/09/03/Oxford+news+%28om_oxfordnews%29/9230889.Passengers_get_exercise_in_improving_punctuality/)

Who on Earth would have suggested such a thing??  :o ::) ;D

Not me!  Though I may have used any of all of the following terms; 'Crazy', 'Mad', 'Daft', 'Silly', 'Nuts', 'Loopy', 'Barmy', or 'Irrational'.   ;)

I've been quoted in the press! My life is complete!

 ;D ;D ;D

 ;D

Sadly without attribution though :(

I thought 'Bonkers!' was quite a measured response.....

:P ;) ;D  


I can live with that; I know it was me what said it.  ;D

Yup, that's me....and named.

But I'm not sure it's measured!



 ;D

Edited to fix quoted quote from a quote in the press. bignosemac  :P

I was hoping Willc would brand the move: "appalling". And not one use of AXED in the entire article. >:(

You'll know if Btline switches career to a journalist! ;D

Surely passengers are being DUMPED or EJECTED at the north end, at the very least...   ;D

Paul

It seems to me good practice for Westbound Eastbourne Terrace where this will have to be done 14 times per hour with presumably lots of people on the platform wanting to go West!

Was going to say that the trial was still alive and kicking on a couple of terminating trains I arrived at Oxford on earlier this week, then realized that II's original post mentioned that it was going to last for 3 months. So by my reckoning that means there's only another two or three weeks to go. Any indications yet regarding whether the trial is considered a success and is likely to be made permanent? Didn't seem to achieve much on the trains I alighted from, but I appreciate that's an incredibly small sample size...

It sounded as if they knew something further was needed when I last soke fo them about it....

Like what?  A platform extension so people have to walk even further...  :-\

Probably misworded that - I meant a proper review as its currently unsatisfactory.

Well, the three month trial is over.  At least it should be over.  Drivers have been given no instructions to go back to the old stopping points, so, for the moment at least the trial continues.

In probably a 100 or so arrivals I've seen over the past three months (whenever I've been there I've been keeping a watch), I've seen a second train routed in behind twice.  On both occasions little or no time seemed to be saved due to the wait before the route to the Down Carriage Sidings could be set.

Evening!

There's a Meet the Manager tomorriw at Oxford. I'm asking the question...will report back.

Thanks.

You find out anything, Chris?

Rumour has it that at a long and drawn out meeting of members of the Oxford Station Working Group, including Network Rail, Arriva XC as well as FGW, and also following valuable input from the DOTBO, very soon - rumoured to be Monday - the trial will end.

The far more sensible approach of utilising permissive working at times of disruption only, and also for two morning arrivals where a XC follows in close behind and there might be the very slightest benefit will then be in effect.  If these rumours are true (backed up by a letter I've seen written by the Station Manager), common sense has prevailed.  Eventually.

Yes, what you've heard is what I've been told directly.

Sorry, forgot I was meaning to report back!

I don't know if the trial is still on, but this evening's 18:25 ex Didcot stopped way past the bridge on platform 2. I don't mind the extra distance - it's nothing compared to my 2-mile walk home - but it does seem a bit pointless.

Seems the powers that be are being a little lazy in instructing the staff to go back to the old method of working - Perhaps ChrisB could chase this up on behalf of the passengers?  Could well happen at the timetable change, due to the fact that a couple of drivers diagrams will need to be amended to display that the driver needs to go to the end of the platform.

I'd better correct myself - it was the 16:25 from Didcot, not the 18:25, my usual train. It's been a long week...

Had it confirmed that from this coming Monday the trial will end.