Poor Regulation?

[whole diary]

[John R]

1437 Paddington to Swansea presented itself on time at Westbury this afternoon, and is then held at Hawkeridge Junction for at least 5 minutes to let an on time Portsmouth Cardiff service (which was booked to follow it) in front. As this had four additional stops between Westbury and Bath Spa, the result is that the Swansea service arrived into Temple Meads over 20 minutes late, with presumably knock on consequences for the rest of its journey.

I can't think of any reason (other than incompetence?) why the Swansea service was held, as if given a clear road it wouldn't have held up the Portsmouth Cardiff service and was booked ahead of it anyway. The TM^‡(resolve) kept apologising for the delay and being held behind a stopping service, but it shouldn't have happened? Or have I missed something?

[eightf48544]

Or have I missed something?

Notworkrail pushes the buttons not FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

[John R]

I wasn't implying it was FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s fault. Agree the faut (if any) lay with the signallers. 

[grahame]

Perhaps the Swansea train had to stop to pick up a pilotman who knew the route via Bradford-on-Avon .... or for some other operational reason, and wasn't ready to go until after the Cardiff had set off.

[eightf48544]

If it was to pick up a Pilotman then it would be a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) delay and Mr. Hopwood would have some harsh words to say to those involved

If it was the case that it was an FGW delay, then what it does show is the lack of discretion that signalmen now have to regulate trains. Even it means that a slightly late non stop train has to follow an ontime stopper.

Otherwise the Westbury signalman should be in for a very uncomfortable interview. 

[grahame]

If it was to ...

If is the operative word.  We don't know, we're just guessing, and there could be a good explanation that we've not come up with.

I remember, a number of years ago, picking up some customers from a very late flight indeed at Bristol Airport, and giving the a list back to Melksham, dropping the off at their B&B at about 1 in the morning.  The Landlady was furious - 'you should have let me know you were going to be this late when you booked and I wouldn't have accepted the booking'.   But actually they had been sat on the delayed plane on the runway in Dublin for many hours, no way to het in touch, and I hadn't known where they were staying until they came out of arrivals - at which point the landlady was probably already tucked up, furious at an apparent no-show, in bed, and we decided not to add a further delay while we found a phone box, called directory enquiries ....

Object lesson to me ... now we've got the shoe on the other foot .. to trust to the reasons given for delays often being sensible ones that may not be obvious, but can usually be put down to something other than a professonal not doing his / her job properly.

[John R]

Perhaps the Swansea train had to stop to pick up a pilotman who knew the route via Bradford-on-Avon .... or for some other operational reason, and wasn't ready to go until after the Cardiff had set off.

No, I can confirm no pilotman boarded. We were at the very front and there was no train related reason for the stop. My initial query left the door open for an explanation as I was curious and hoping it wasn't just a cock up.   

[Brucey]

I believe the Portsmouth - Cardiff service mentioned was the one I travelled on.  There were certainly no delays affecting our service - the whole journey ran to time.

My thought for allowing the stopping service through was that it was due on Platform 9 at Temple Meads at 16:41.  The Weston - Severn Beach service was also booked into Platform 9 at 16:53.  Given the length of time it takes to load the Cardiff service (due to passenger volume), perhaps a delay on the Pompey-Cardiff train would have caused a knock-on effect to the SVB service.  But then a simple platform alteration could've solved this ... 

[LiskeardRich]

I believe the Portsmouth - Cardiff service mentioned was the one I travelled on.  There were certainly no delays affecting our service - the whole journey ran to time.

My thought for allowing the stopping service through was that it was due on Platform 9 at Temple Meads at 16:41.  The Weston - Severn Beach service was also booked into Platform 9 at 16:53.  Given the length of time it takes to load the Cardiff service (due to passenger volume), perhaps a delay on the Pompey-Cardiff train would have caused a knock-on effect to the SVB service.  But then a simple platform alteration could've solved this ... 

this explanation means they prioritised the severn beach service over a fast service, still not correct in many eyes

[Brucey]

this explanation means they prioritised the severn beach service over a fast service, still not correct in many eyes

I agree, but assuming my reason is the correct one, holding the SVB service before Temple Meads may cause problems on other intercity services.  For example, the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) service from Penzance to Manchester is also timed to arrive at 16:53 into Temple Meads.

Another observation I made was that this XC service arrived into Platform 7, instead of its usual Platform 3.  The duty station manager and service delivery manager were floating around P9 with clipboards, looking like they were rushed off their feet.

[JayMac]

The WSM - SVB is due into Temple Meads at 1649 ahead of the 1653 XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) arrival. If the Weston is running a little late it is possible for the XC to overtake it at Bedminster. So a local can be held outside Temple Meads without detriment to a following intercity.

[Zoe]

It seems to no longer be the case that intercity services get priority under local services.  Anyone that's been on XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) into Birmingham should seen this as it usually invloved a 20 mph from King's Norton all the way into New Street behind a Cross City stopper.

[inspector_blakey]

Perhaps, but that is generally accounted for by the timetable. As I understand things this example we are discussing is a local and an express service running out of course for no readily apparent reason. It's always something of a stagger into New Street anyway given that the line-speeds on the cross-city line are fairly low and traffic is so dense.

[SDS]

Was under the impression that if a train was late even by 1 min, it would get regulated for a slow on time service. The Trust delays would go to that 1min late train as REG-ONTIME (Regulated for ontime service).

Otherwise any subsequent delays would get dumped on that signaller for not following policy.

Now any sensible person would have thought, hmm....
Train A goes at 125mph doesn't stop for miles and is 1 late.
Train B goes at 70mph and stops every bl**dy where. Lets put Train A in front.
But no everyone knows that sensible, logic and railway don't go together.

Anyways thats how I was always told it worked.

[Super Guard]

Was under the impression that if a train was late even by 1 min, it would get regulated for a slow on time service. The Trust delays would go to that 1min late train as REG-ONTIME (Regulated for ontime service).

Otherwise any subsequent delays would get dumped on that signaller for not following policy.

Now any sensible person would have thought, hmm....
Train A goes at 125mph doesn't stop for miles and is 1 late.
Train B goes at 70mph and stops every bl**dy where. Lets put Train A in front.
But no everyone knows that sensible, logic and railway don't go together.

Anyways thats how I was always told it worked.

I'm sorry I find that very hard to believe.  I've arrived at EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) right-time on a stopper, and consequently been held for a late running PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-PNZ to through, causing a delay to my train, so this cannot be a "normal" policy.

Delaying a fast service, causing more delay minutes is going to cost more money than correctly regulating and letting the fast service go, unless NR^» (Network Rail - home page) now think it is acceptable to charge FGW^▸ (First Great Western) more delay minutes this way making themselves more money??!  I'm sure if this the case, on analysis of the delay, FGW will be kicking off more than any of the passengers!