SO to that note....do we agree that until any changes to infrastructure are made to birmingham new street... that padding is indeed a good thing?
A very interesting question. my initial thought is no because slack leads to slackness.
However, I do think that more analysis is needed as to why say
XC▸ feel they need 20 minutes slack at Birmingham New Street similarly the excessive station stops on the Cotswold line.
Is it just lack of infrastructure and/or failures, or is it mixture of excessive
TSRs▸ , train failures (loss of engine hence speed), bad regulation at junctions, late starts, poor station work?
Unless this very detailed analysis is done then adding slack helps keep trains seemingly punctual but doesn't actually solve the original problem which is; why do trains run late? Until you know the cause of delays for almost every train then adding slack is an easy option.
It's also relatively easy to do and does improve
TOCs▸ punctuality statistics, however ,I don't believe it's the way to run an efficient railway. Features of which I feel is to get people from A to B in the shortest possible time, on time, every time and with a seat!
So I can see why TOCs do it, especialy as they are punished for late running.
I believe in Virgin's time a trial was held to give the Aberdeen Penzance priority at choke points like Birmingham even if was out of path. I understand this led to a dramatic increase in on time arrivals at Penzance. With little knock on effect to other services. Of course with the current system, knock on effects are counted against the TOC causing them so it's easier to have one train running very late rather than get it through and possibly back near to time than possibly delay several other trains a few minutes each.
Basically if you want an efficient railway, bring back the "Fat Controller" who is in charge of everything between that happens between the boundary fences.
Click on the map to explore geographics
