More than four in 10 trains are late

[AndyLandy]

There was also a very slow section over a viaduct west of Northwich, but I'm not sure if this was normal or was a temporary thing.

This is normal. I believe the trains are limited to 20mph over Northwich Viaduct. Allegedly there's a Sprinter differential that's faster, but Pacers cannot use it? As such, all services are timetabled for 20mph over the viaduct.

 

[johnnychips]

Thanks for explaining.

 

[AeroSpace]

Why not look at the distribution of delay, rather than focusing on a single statistic like "proportion of services x minutes late"?

 

[tec]

But can you do that and still keep to speed limits? Are you saying you have never been stuck in traffic or found a road closed?

Obviously I would have to break speed limits to arrive earlier.


I was stuck on the motorway in a jam for an hours delay only this week, but this happens once or twice a year, where on a train this would be at least twice a week.

 

[button_boxer]

What proportion of people who have travelled by train can say that they have been involved in an incident? No doubt far, far fewer than can say they've been in a road incident.

This works both ways, and depends what you consider an "incident". Because trains are generally reliable and punctual, a relatively minor delay such as being held outside a station for ten minutes due to congestion would be noteworthy, but being stuck in traffic on the motorway for twenty minutes due to a broken down vehicle on the hard shoulder is just par for the course and wouldn't necessarily be considered to be "an incident".

 

[Ferret]

Then they need to buy trains with doors that can cope with bring held open.

A slightly 'off the wall' comment. The byelaw covering this form of mischief exists for a reason!

 

[barrykas]

There's a good reason for generally suppressing "next working" type links in CIS. If you don't, you end up with Live Depatures reporting things like the 13:09 Marylebone to Stratford-upon-Avon today starting from Aylesbury at around 10am, running to Marylebone via Amersham (arrives 11:05ish), then joining to another unit and not leaving 'til 13:09.

Admittedly that is what happens in reality, but it makes LDBs look "odd"!

 

[infobleep]

There's a good reason for generally suppressing "next working" type links in CIS. If you don't, you end up with Live Depatures reporting things like the 13:09 Marylebone to Stratford-upon-Avon today starting from Aylesbury at around 10am, running to Marylebone via Amersham (arrives 11:05ish), then joining to another unit and not leaving 'til 13:09.

Admittedly that is what happens in reality, but it makes LDBs look "odd"!

Is that a passenger working? Even if it's not I still think such info would be useful. I'd rather be slightly confused then not know my train is late.

It's even worse when your at a Transport for London station. If a train is cancelled it will just say, due in 1 minute, then 2 minutes, then 1 minute etc. etc.

One time I heard an announcement saying that they had just been informed that the London Midland service from Harrow & Wealdstone to Euston had been cancelled. I then heard a passenger remark to some others, they wouldn't have been aware if I hadn't asked them where the train was!

In other words a passenger prompted them to go and find out, rather than any staff actually telling passengers.

You also get the other message of services on all lines are ok. What they should really say is all lines run by TFL, as they don't include London Midland or Southern in that statement. The casual passenger wouldn't know that though.

I can only assume that the communication between National Rail companies or perhaps just London Midland, and Transport for London is poor.

 

[jnjkerbin]

I was stuck on the motorway in a jam for an hours delay only this week, but this happens once or twice a year, where on a train this would be at least twice a week.

Are you saying you would expect 1 hour + delay every week on the train?

 

[tec]

Are you saying you would expect 1 hour + delay every week on the train?

I would not expect such delays, but 15 to 30 minute delays is not unusual more than once a week.

 

[transmanche]

Then they need to buy trains with doors that can cope with bring held open.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you serious? The train was on time before this passenger did this. The doors were half closed are forced them back open again to let his mate on who was late he ended up delaying 000's of people and the company got the blame.

I'm not condoning the passenger's action; but I agree with Tibbs. If the mechanism can't cope with a door being held open, then it's not fit for purpose. Like it or not, this is a foreseeable event - so build it in a way that it doesn't mean the train has to be taken out of service.

 

[AndyLandy]

I'm not condoning the passenger's action; but I agree with Tibbs. If the mechanism can't cope with a door being held open, then it's not fit for purpose. Like it or not, this is a foreseeable event - so build it in a way that it doesn't mean the train has to be taken out of service.

I believe the old adage goes something along the lines of "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"

It's far better to simply prevent these sorts of things occuring than to deal with the aftermath when something does occur.

 

[jnjkerbin]

I would not expect such delays, but 15 to 30 minute delays is not unusual more than once a week.

Nor would it be on a road journey of similar length.

 

[transmanche]

I believe the old adage goes something along the lines of "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"

It's far better to simply prevent these sorts of things occuring than to deal with the aftermath when something does occur.

And in this case, the prevention is to make the door closing mechanism more robust - because (unfortunately) you'll never stop people holding doors open.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm not condoning the passenger's action; but I agree with Tibbs. If the mechanism can't cope with a door being held open, then it's not fit for purpose. Like it or not, this is a foreseeable event - so build it in a way that it doesn't mean the train has to be taken out of service.

The doors purpose is to open and shut, not to be held open like some sort of strength testing machine. It manages to open and shut perfectly well without interference from people, so the problem is not the door.

 

[AndyLandy]

The doors purpose is to open and shut, not to be held open like some sort of strength testing machine. It manages to open and shut perfectly well without interference from people, so the problem is not the door.

Correct, the door is not the problem, but if by improving the door, you can reduce the effects of the actual problem (people holding the doors), then it's something you should probably consider doing. Sadly, thugs and vandals are a fact of life. People are likely to try this sort of stunt. You can either deal with the people, usually by throwing the law at them, or you could stop them being able to do it in the first place.

 

[transmanche]

The doors purpose is to open and shut, not to be held open like some sort of strength testing machine. It manages to open and shut perfectly well without interference from people, so the problem is not the door.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the purpose of the door. But they have to be tough enough to operate in the environment they are placed. And they are operating in an environment where there are people. People don't always do sensible things. So you can either a) pretend that passengers will never hold a door open, or b) make them robust enough to withstand the kind of punishment that passengers put them through.

In donkey's years of travelling on the tube, I have never seen a train taken out of service through someone holding a door open on 1959/62/67/72/73 stock. But on 2009 stock...

 

[MCR247]

I'd wish someone look if they decided to try and hold a door on a desiro open

 

[Dave1987]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the purpose of the door. But they have to be tough enough to operate in the environment they are placed. And they are operating in an environment where there are people. People don't always do sensible things. So you can either a) pretend that passengers will never hold a door open, or b) make them robust enough to withstand the kind of punishment that passengers put them through.

In donkey's years of travelling on the tube, I have never seen a train taken out of service through someone holding a door open on 1959/62/67/72/73 stock. But on 2009 stock...

Where do you draw the line? Would you design pavements to be soft so when people enevitably fall over they don't hurt themselves. Why should you always have to design everything to cope with idiots!

 

[transmanche]

But they have to be tough enough to operate in the environment they are placed. And they are operating in an environment where there are people. People don't always do sensible things. So you can either a) pretend that passengers will never hold a door open, or b) make them robust enough to withstand the kind of punishment that passengers put them through.

In donkey's years of travelling on the tube, I have never seen a train taken out of service through someone holding a door open on 1959/62/67/72/73 stock. But on 2009 stock...

Where do you draw the line? Would you design pavements to be soft so when people enevitably fall over they don't hurt themselves. Why should you always have to design everything to cope with idiots!

Playground designers do exactly that - they didn't in my day!

Idiots scratch train and bus windows. Pretending they don't doesn't solve the problem. So we cover the windows in anti-vandal film.

Idiots open train slam-doors before they stop. Pretending they don't doesn't solve the problem. So we eliminate most slam-doors and fit the rest with central locking.

Idiots flush the loo when the train is at a station. Pretending they don't doesn't solve the problem. So we fit retention tanks to the trains.

As noted above; we used to design train doors which withstood a bit rough treatment, without needing to fail an entire train. But apparently now we can't.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Idiots flush the loo when the train is at a station. Pretending they don't doesn't solve the problem. So we fit retention tanks to the trains

I'd hardly call somebody an idiot for doing flushing the toilet after themselves. It's what civilised people normally do. The fact that railway rolling stock was designed to dump sewage all over the tracks was a little medieval, shall we say.

Oh yes, my solution to the door problem. Upgrade all power doors so that they close so powerfully they can't be held open. That'll teach 'em.

 

[GadgetMan]

Oh yes, my solution to the door problem. Upgrade all power doors so that they close so powerfully they can't be held open. That'll teach 'em.

..... with razor blade sharp edges!!!

 

[Lewisham2221]

Not to mention, of course that all hammers should be designed to shatter when they inevitably come in to contact with someone's thumb, to avoid injury.

And helium ballons shall be designed in such a way that they are all nice and floaty until the child inevitably lets go of it, in which case it shall immediately fall into said childs lap, protecting the public from the invonvenience of listening to child screaming and crying.

I could go on...

 

[O L Leigh]

I would imagine that the train in question was a BR-era Cl321 and not a post-privatisation unit.

Either way, the door mechanism is, by necessity, at the top of the doors themselves. The bottom of the doors is simply held by a guide structure to mimic the powered mechanism at the top. There is a certain amount of give within the door mechanism itself to permit adjustment to ensure reliable operation.

Modern units have an obstruction sensor that prevent excessive force being applied to the doors against the closing mechanism. This ensures passenger safety as well as preventing excessive forces being applied to the doors themselves. Older units lack this feature so that effectively it becomes a test of strength between pillock passenger and door. Unfortunately in the tussle it is possible that a door can go "out of square" and cause the mechanism to jam preventing interlock being gained.

So, what would you have the railways do? The reason for the train being failed at Chelmsford was that a passenger ignored the hustle alarms and forced their way onto the train through the closing doors. Most times we get away with it and the doors close behind them, but every now and then the passenger gets unlucky and causes a fault that can eventually lead to a failure. Quite frankly I think it's a timely reminder not to attempt this type of stunt as it is fraught with danger. If I had been the driver, I would have been VERY clear about the EXACT reason for the failure.

More robust doors are not the answer. Train doors are fit for purpose and, if they were any more robust, there is a very good chance that they would have caused injury to the passenger involved. Is that an acceptable alternative?

O L Leigh

 

[Dave1987]

I would imagine that the train in question was a BR-era Cl321 and not a post-privatisation unit.

Either way, the door mechanism is, by necessity, at the top of the doors themselves. The bottom of the doors is simply held by a guide structure to mimic the powered mechanism at the top. There is a certain amount of give within the door mechanism itself to permit adjustment to ensure reliable operation.

Modern units have an obstruction sensor that prevent excessive force being applied to the doors against the closing mechanism. This ensures passenger safety as well as preventing excessive forces being applied to the doors themselves. Older units lack this feature so that effectively it becomes a test of strength between pillock passenger and door. Unfortunately in the tussle it is possible that a door can go "out of square" and cause the mechanism to jam preventing interlock being gained.

So, what would you have the railways do? The reason for the train being failed at Chelmsford was that a passenger ignored the hustle alarms and forced their way onto the train through the closing doors. Most times we get away with it and the doors close behind them, but every now and then the passenger gets unlucky and causes a fault that can eventually lead to a failure. Quite frankly I think it's a timely reminder not to attempt this type of stunt as it is fraught with danger. If I had been the driver, I would have been VERY clear about the EXACT reason for the failure.

More robust doors are not the answer. Train doors are fit for purpose and, if they were any more robust, there is a very good chance that they would have caused injury to the passenger involved. Is that an acceptable alternative?

O L Leigh

Yes it was a 321 and it was a 12 car so pulling the TIS and remaining in service wasn't really an option considering have many doors you would have to check every time. I find it interesting that a lot of the failure of units on GEML is as a result of door faults, the only parts of the train the passenger interacts with.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd hardly call somebody an idiot for doing flushing the toilet after themselves. It's what civilised people normally do.

Not when there are clear instructions not to flush the loo when the train is stopped at a station.

 

[AndyLandy]

Not to mention, of course that all hammers should be designed to shatter when they inevitably come in to contact with someone's thumb, to avoid injury.

And helium ballons shall be designed in such a way that they are all nice and floaty until the child inevitably lets go of it, in which case it shall immediately fall into said childs lap, protecting the public from the invonvenience of listening to child screaming and crying.

I could go on...

Of course you could. That's a fine example of a Slippery Slope fallacy and I have no doubt that you could find countless other examples for it. Doesn't prove anything though. Sorry.

More robust doors are not the answer. Train doors are fit for purpose and, if they were any more robust, there is a very good chance that they would have caused injury to the passenger involved. Is that an acceptable alternative?

That's a more reasoned argument against. You should make the train doors better at dealing with being held open as far as it is practical to do so. It may well be that this point has been reached and making the doors more resistant to that sort of treatment would create other, worse problems, in which case you're stuck with the possibility that a train might go out of service when mistreated in this way.

 

[BestWestern]

The doors purpose is to open and shut, not to be held open like some sort of strength testing machine. It manages to open and shut perfectly well without interference from people, so the problem is not the door.

The problem here is not with the door itself, but with the fact that a door being forced results in the train being failed. Doors have to be designed to 'give up' if there is something/somebody in their way, as if they ended up causing injury the TOC could be liable. With that in mind, the door and it's associated interlocking system really does need to be able to carry on with the job if this happens, rather than fall on it's a*se and up with the train being cancelled. Sliding doors on 1980's units are particularly pathetic, rattling as they do every time the wind blows, emitting a loud bang and scaring the hell out of everybody when another train passes at speed, and of course easily coming off their runners when some pillock gets in the way. On a railway as busy as today's, where people are forced to cram into vestibules, this isn't really ideal. How FCC don't end up with half of their 319's grinding to a halt every weekday morning I'll never know!

Can you imagine how the Underground would cope in the rush hours if a train had to come out of service every time somebody obstructed a door?!

 

[barrykas]

Is that a passenger working? Even if it's not I still think such info would be useful. I'd rather be slightly confused then not know my train is late.

That is, belatedly, a passenger working. Seems to have been resolved today though, as there's nothing immediately striking me as "odd" showing on LDBs, at least not in Chilternland.

 

[O L Leigh]

You should make the train doors better at dealing with being held open as far as it is practical to do so. It may well be that this point has been reached and making the doors more resistant to that sort of treatment would create other, worse problems, in which case you're stuck with the possibility that a train might go out of service when mistreated in this way.

I believe we have already reached this point.

Those of us with a longer memory may recall that the Cl150s were getting into the news because passengers were being caught in the sliding doors and injured (bruising being frequently reported). The upshot of this was that sliding door stock was fitted with hustle alarms that sound to warn passengers that the doors were closing and, I would suspect, the pressure in the door air system was reduced to a point where it couldn't cause injury.

Given the abuse that these units suffer on a daily basis with doors being held open against the closing mechanism or forced open by tardy passengers, it's a miracle that more trains don't go out of service due to door faults and failures. The doors work and, as I said before, are fit for purpose but, as with any door, if you abuse it enough it will eventually develop faults and fail. Doors that become faulty are identified and reported by traincrew for attention on depot.

With that in mind, the door and it's associated interlocking system really does need to be able to carry on with the job if this happens, rather than fall on it's a*se and up with the train being cancelled. Sliding doors on 1980's units are particularly pathetic, rattling as they do every time the wind blows, emitting a loud bang and scaring the hell out of everybody when another train passes at speed, and of course easily coming off their runners when some pillock gets in the way.

See above.

I have never known a door fail simply because a single person has got in the way, and have DEFINATELY never known one jump it's runner. In fact, I don't believe that the clearances are sufficient for that even to be possible. As I mentioned yesterday, what tends to happen is that a door is forced "out of square" and so jams. But we can generally identify the ones that are at risk of jamming because they tend to stick when opening or closing. I always investigate any "slow" doors and book them as faulty if they are sticking.

Can you imagine how the Underground would cope in the rush hours if a train had to come out of service every time somebody obstructed a door?!

Bit dramatic, mate. That doesn't happen on NR either.

O L Leigh