Is there any incentive for good regulation?

[yorkie]

My example is from Thursday 28th March.

As many people know, the fast from King's Cross to Sunderland is often at least a little late, and on this occasion it departed 1 minute after the 2003 stopping service to Leeds, the trains were on adjacent lines out of King's Cross and it is understandable that both were given proceed aspects out of their respective platforms. But it would have seemed a good choice to route the 2000 ahead at Belle Isle, but it appears the decision was already made to route the 2003 onto the Down Fast ahead of the 2000.

But then at Peterborough there was an opportunity to correct the situation which was missed. The 2000 was brought to a stand on the fast line, to allow the 2003 a right time departure from Platform 4 onto the fast line.

The 2000 was also brought to a stand at Newark North Gate as the 2003 sat in the platform for three minutes.

The 2000 eventually was was able to overtake 2003 at Doncaster, by which time it was 17 minutes late, having incurred an additional 12 minutes of delay.

Surely LNER themselves would not have chosen for this regulation to occur? I understand the entire delay to the 2000 was put down to the late start, with no attribution for regulation whatsoever.

Is there anyone to whom Network Rail is actually truly accountable for such decisions, or are they able to decide on behalf of an operator that one of their trains will be doomed to fail PPM instead of attaining a pragmatic, sensible outcome where both trains achieve PPM?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70200/2019/03/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70310/2019/03/28/advanced

 

[cactustwirly]

My example is from Thursday 28th March.

As many people know, the fast from King's Cross to Sunderland is often at least a little late, and on this occasion it departed 1 minute after the 2003 stopping service to Leeds, the trains were on adjacent lines out of King's Cross and it is understandable that both were given proceed aspects out of their respective platforms. But it would have seemed a good choice to route the 2000 ahead at Belle Isle, but it appears the decision was already made to route the 2003 onto the Down Fast ahead of the 2000.

But then at Peterborough there was an opportunity to correct the situation which was missed. The 2000 was brought to a stand on the fast line, to allow the 2003 a right time departure from Platform 4 onto the fast line.

The 2000 was also brought to a stand at Newark North Gate as the 2003 sat in the platform for three minutes.

The 2000 eventually was was able to overtake 2003 at Doncaster, by which time it was 17 minutes late, having incurred an additional 12 minutes of delay.

Surely LNER themselves would not have chosen for this regulation to occur? I understand entire delay to the 2000 was put down to the late start, with no attribution for regulation whatsoever.

Is there anyone to whom Network Rail is actually accountable, or are they able to decide on behalf of an operator that one of their trains will be doomed to fail PPM instead of attaining a situation where both trains achieve PPM?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70200/2019/03/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70310/2019/03/28/advanced

Seems like a poor decision tbh, the delay to the 2003 would have been negligible compared to that of the 2000, if it had been looped at Belle Isle or Peterborough!

This sort of thing happens on the MML too, with Thameslink services routed in front of fast EMT services!

 

[Highlandspring]

Is there anyone to whom Network Rail is actually truly accountable for such decisions, or are they able to decide on behalf of an operator that one of their trains will be doomed to fail PPM instead of attaining a pragmatic, sensible outcome where both trains achieve PPM?

Every TOC is looked after by a Customer Executive in each NR Route and they are the liaison between the TOC and NR for all performance issues like this. There are regular review meetings involving TOC staff, the Customer Executive and NR Control staff where this sort of thing is brought up. Really contentious decisions tend to be escalated more or less in real time from TOC Control management to NR Control management.

As it happens LNER has a post in their Control which is responsible for proactively monitoring their services and suggesing regulating decisions to NR Controls. From experience they run a very tight ship and are not shy in letting you know exactly what they think of your regulating though ultimately the NR Train Running Controller has the final say.

 

[LAX54]

My example is from Thursday 28th March.

As many people know, the fast from King's Cross to Sunderland is often at least a little late, and on this occasion it departed 1 minute after the 2003 stopping service to Leeds, the trains were on adjacent lines out of King's Cross and it is understandable that both were given proceed aspects out of their respective platforms. But it would have seemed a good choice to route the 2000 ahead at Belle Isle, but it appears the decision was already made to route the 2003 onto the Down Fast ahead of the 2000.

But then at Peterborough there was an opportunity to correct the situation which was missed. The 2000 was brought to a stand on the fast line, to allow the 2003 a right time departure from Platform 4 onto the fast line.

The 2000 was also brought to a stand at Newark North Gate as the 2003 sat in the platform for three minutes.

The 2000 eventually was was able to overtake 2003 at Doncaster, by which time it was 17 minutes late, having incurred an additional 12 minutes of delay.

Surely LNER themselves would not have chosen for this regulation to occur? I understand the entire delay to the 2000 was put down to the late start, with no attribution for regulation whatsoever.

Is there anyone to whom Network Rail is actually truly accountable for such decisions, or are they able to decide on behalf of an operator that one of their trains will be doomed to fail PPM instead of attaining a pragmatic, sensible outcome where both trains achieve PPM?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70200/2019/03/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y70310/2019/03/28/advanced

Rest assured if it was a Signaller regulating decision, he would have been taken to task, and the delay will be down to him and recorded, and if it carries on, then on Poor Performance, Yes mistakes can and do happen by the Signaller, but most regulating instructions tend to come from Control after a discussion between NR and the TOC, it's their train after all ! Of course some places have ARS, and that can make some really odd moves sometimes!

 

[yorkie]

Two mistakes by two different signallers?

Does ARS control the signal from Peterborough platform 4?

 

[JN114]

No on the second point. Doncaster does not have ARS.

 

[dwaynedibleyuk]

Given that the Sunderland service was late, is usually late and left 1 minute after the Leeds I would suggest that the regulating decision at Belle Isle was made before the signaller knew the Sunderland was ready to depart. As for Peterborough, it would seem like the logical place for the overtake but i have never even seen the panel so can't help as to why they weren't swapped there. Newark Northgate isn't great for regulating of this kind. Platform 2 currently requires drivers to be cautioned if entering from the south so would have delayed either service considerably. Platform 3 from the south and back out is a very slow route. From Doncaster PSBs point of view Doncaster station was the first place this move could have reasonably been done.

In my experience nearly all regulating decisions are made by the signaller on their own. That is what they get paid for. Control will have an input in specific circumstances, such as very late running. Undoubtedly this will vary across the country but where I work (a busy PSB) the signaller makes 99% of their regulating decisions themselves without any input from anyone else.

 

[Spartacus]

It's a Right Time train given the run in preference to a late one, easy decision to make. If the RT one is given the road, the late one calls out and you take the road back, that's when awkward questions start being asked, and rightly so. Given 1D31 goes first I reckon it wou
Going back to an earlier point about GTRs on the MML, usually the main aim, especially southbound, is to keep the GTRs in the right order so they don't cause bedlam once the end up on Southern. Turning a fast GTR onto the fasts at Radlett in front of an EMT is going to cause far less overall delay than either running it SL to West Hampstead behind the one or two it was meant to overtake, or holding it at Radlett and delaying a GTR behind it, then havong to hp;d the trains it was mean to overtale at West Hampstead and Cricklewood. Fast GTRs might be kept SL at Harpenden but if they're booked to overtake something they will normally be coming FL at Radlett, regardless of the EMT.

 

[Mag_seven]

I was on the 1V59 1405 Manchester Piccadilly to Paignton (joining at New St) today. The train departed New St on time but lost time en route towards Cheltenham (primarily due to a special stop at Bromsgrove) such that it was 12 minutes late at Gloucester Barnwood Jn. Unfortunately the powers that be decided to allow the 2O97 1640 Gloucester to Weymouth to run right time ahead of us at Gloucester Yard Jn with the result that our train became 29L at Bristol Parkway as 2O97 has station calls at Cam & Dursley and Yate. I alighted at Bristol Parkway but noted that 1V59 eventually arrived at its terminal station, Paignton, 43L. The question is why could 2O97 not have been held at Gloucester Yard Jn for about 3 mins? I doubt there would have been much impact as 2O97 is booked to sit in Bristol TM for 12 mins!

1V59 1405 Manchester Piccadilly to Paignton
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P38696/2019/06/27/advanced

2O97 1640 Gloucester to Weymouth
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C23135/2019/06/27/advanced

 

[221129]

I was on the 1V59 1405 Manchester Piccadilly to Paignton (joining at New St) today. The train departed New St on time but lost time en route towards Cheltenham (primarily due to a special stop at Bromsgrove) such that it was 12 minutes late at Gloucester Barnwood Jn. Unfortunately the powers that be decided to allow the 2O97 1640 Gloucester to Weymouth to run right time ahead of us at Gloucester Yard Jn with the result that our train became 29L at Bristol Parkway as 2O97 has station calls at Cam & Dursley and Yate. I alighted at Bristol Parkway but noted that 1V59 eventually arrived at its terminal station, Paignton, 43L. The question is why could 2O97 not have been held at Gloucester Yard Jn for about 3 mins? I doubt there would have been much impact as 2O97 is booked to sit in Bristol TM for 12 mins!

1V59 1405 Manchester Piccadilly to Paignton
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P38696/2019/06/27/advanced

2O97 1640 Gloucester to Weymouth
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C23135/2019/06/27/advanced

In the South West if you're not GWR then you're at the bottom of the list. TVSC seem especially good at doing that. Exeter are not much better IME.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In the South West if you're not GWR then you're at the bottom of the list. TVSC seem especially good at doing that. Exeter are not much better IME.

Why does GWR have such priority?

 

[Aictos]

I was on the 1V59 1405 Manchester Piccadilly to Paignton (joining at New St) today. The train departed New St on time but lost time en route towards Cheltenham (primarily due to a special stop at Bromsgrove) such that it was 12 minutes late at Gloucester Barnwood Jn. Unfortunately the powers that be decided to allow the 2O97 1640 Gloucester to Weymouth to run right time ahead of us at Gloucester Yard Jn with the result that our train became 29L at Bristol Parkway as 2O97 has station calls at Cam & Dursley and Yate. I alighted at Bristol Parkway but noted that 1V59 eventually arrived at its terminal station, Paignton, 43L. The question is why could 2O97 not have been held at Gloucester Yard Jn for about 3 mins? I doubt there would have been much impact as 2O97 is booked to sit in Bristol TM for 12 mins!

1V59 1405 Manchester Piccadilly to Paignton
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P38696/2019/06/27/advanced

2O97 1640 Gloucester to Weymouth
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C23135/2019/06/27/advanced

Yes but the next working that the XC did which was to Birmingham actually left on time.

 

[darloscott]

Had similar when travelling last week... when Huddersfield let the TPE stopper out (on time) in front of my (roughly 8 late) Middlesbrough, end result being the stopper sat at Dewsbury for nearly 10 min whilst mine had to sit outside and wait, thereby blocking the Newcastle behind (which didn't stop at Dewsbury). End result was the stopper arrived into Leeds on time, and my Middlesbrough service was about 30 late, and the Newcastle behind similarly around 20 min late. Luckily I did get home as the Middlesbrough was turned at Thornaby to get it back on time going south. It all just seemed a very odd move to me when they could have sent the stopper around 5 min late from Huddersfield, which it would have gained back in the huge layover at Dewsbury and then carried on to Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

In July's Modern Railways Andrew Haines is talking about the consequences of the Public Performance Measure (or Passenger? Better known as PPM) culture where the aim is to keep everything within 5 or 10min late at final destination. Even being less than 5min late at a critical junction along the route can cause delay to other trains. He appears to appreciate the importance of "to the second", to the extent that he always starts his meetings at the exact second they are scheduled for!

 

[JN114]

It goes back to one of the earliest points I think was made in this thread - the people making these decisions are ultimately human. It’s easy to sit here and analyse after the fact with 20/20 hindsight.

In the 1V59/2O97 example, 1V59 was still all the way back at Cheltenham when the time would have come to route 2O97 out of Gloucester station and make the regulating decision for Yard Junction - and while that equates to only a few minutes run time it looks an awful long way away on Gloucester Panel. And while the 2Oxx does have a whole 12 minutes to change ends at Temple Meads; that won’t be immediately obvious to the Signalman at Gloucester - they’d have to go look it up.

 

[embers25]

It goes back to one of the earliest points I think was made in this thread - the people making these decisions are ultimately human. It’s easy to sit here and analyse after the fact with 20/20 hindsight.

In the 1V59/2O97 example, 1V59 was still all the way back at Cheltenham when the time would have come to route 2O97 out of Gloucester station and make the regulating decision for Yard Junction - and while that equates to only a few minutes run time it looks an awful long way away on Gloucester Panel. And while the 2Oxx does have a whole 12 minutes to change ends at Temple Meads; that won’t be immediately obvious to the Signalman at Gloucester - they’d have to go look it up.

In the past XC were always held behind GWR until Bristol TM, then they started letting them past at BPW and then ore recently, they usually stick teh GWR in the loop near Yate. The same issue also happens between Bristol and Worle where sometimes GWR are looped before Worle, other times not. Basically if XC is late they have no chance!

 

[43094]

In the above 2000/2003 example, if the road had already been set for the 2003 to run first, I’d have hoped the 2000 would have been let past at PBO instead.

Newark on the Down is something I wouldn’t expect though, for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[JN114]

Why does GWR have such priority?

I think @221129 may have had their tongue firmly in cheek - from a control perspective there is no official policy to that end - indeed most of the formal regulation statements favour XC over GWR; the only thing that isn’t meant to happen is the GWR shouldn’t be delayed to the extent it misses PPM if the XC can’t make PPM.

Anecdotally of course it may appear otherwise. As with seats, it’s only the bad decisions that stick in the mind...

 

[Mintona]

I think @221129 may have had their tongue firmly in cheek - from a control perspective there is no official policy to that end - indeed most of the formal regulation statements favour XC over GWR; the only thing that isn’t meant to happen is the GWR shouldn’t be delayed to the extent it misses PPM if the XC can’t make PPM.

Anecdotally of course it may appear otherwise. As with seats, it’s only the bad decisions that stick in the mind...

I was going to say, the amount of times I’ve been checked down to a red at Westerleigh Jn for a late running down Cross Country, I don’t think that is a policy!

 

[carriageline]

It's a Right Time train given the run in preference to a late one, easy decision to make. If the RT one is given the road, the late one calls out and you take the road back, that's when awkward questions start being asked, and rightly so. Given 1D31 goes first I reckon it wou
Going back to an earlier point about GTRs on the MML, usually the main aim, especially southbound, is to keep the GTRs in the right order so they don't cause bedlam once the end up on Southern. Turning a fast GTR onto the fasts at Radlett in front of an EMT is going to cause far less overall delay than either running it SL to West Hampstead behind the one or two it was meant to overtake, or holding it at Radlett and delaying a GTR behind it, then havong to hp;d the trains it was mean to overtale at West Hampstead and Cricklewood. Fast GTRs might be kept SL at Harpenden but if they're booked to overtake something they will normally be coming FL at Radlett, regardless of the EMT.

Saying a “right time train gets preference over a late one” is (in my mind at least) a misconception of the regulating policies. So much more should come into play, number of stops, make up time etc etc. A stopping, slow train can be held for a few minutes to let a fast train fly ahead, even if the fast 5-10 late (IE out of PPM)

As a side note, problems start when signallers make good decisions which benefit the overall service, but then have delay minutes put down to “them”. As another poster correctly said, if you keep regularly getting large delay minutes put down to you, your manager will start asking questions. You then get signallers start regulating to avoid being booked for delays, and not managing a decent service.

 

[JN114]

As a side note, problems start when signallers make good decisions which benefit the overall service, but then have delay minutes put down to “them”. As another poster correctly said, if you keep regularly getting large delay minutes put down to you, your manager will start asking questions. You then get signallers start regulating to avoid being booked for delays, and not managing a decent service.

I think it goes both ways in fairness; and the fundamental problem is mis-management.

Signallers getting a hard time off management for silly things where best intentions/endeavours were made; but nothing being done by actual poor regulation - bad decisions where they’ve clearly not been paying enough attention or sitting there watching ARS (automatic route-setting) make a complete hash of things and not making any efforts to intervene.

We need the culture around delays to change. A great many of the railway’s performance problems are of its own making. I like to hope that in the event of a shift to %RT being the primary performance metric the public hold us to that they use that opportunity to rewrite regulation policies - the current “rules” would not be compatible with such a regime.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think it goes both ways in fairness; and the fundamental problem is mis-management.

Signallers getting a hard time off management for silly things where best intentions/endeavours were made; but nothing being done by actual poor regulation - bad decisions where they’ve clearly not been paying enough attention or sitting there watching ARS (automatic route-setting) make a complete hash of things and not making any efforts to intervene.

We need the culture around delays to change. A great many of the railway’s performance problems are of its own making. I like to hope that in the event of a shift to %RT being the primary performance metric the public hold us to that they use that opportunity to rewrite regulation policies - the current “rules” would not be compatible with such a regime.

I think the focus needs to be, as much as possible, put on minimising total passenger delay minutes. That means that those trains with more passengers on currently (and at stations it's yet to stop at) would be given priority. Obviously that's going to be difficult to implement well given the lack of a joined-up train loading system across the network, but it's certainly the kind of thing I'd like to hope that Network Rail are working to implement as part of their "digital railway" efforts.

It also means linking up things like on-train e-ticket scanning, axle loading sensors, advance ticket purchases and so on. In other words, linking up the revenue part of the railway with the signalling part. With the disjointed way the rail industry is structured at the moment I don't expect anything as revolutionary as this to happen within the next decade at least.

 

[Tomnick]

Here's one to contemplate from yesterday!

1S55 left Derby at 18:49, four minutes late, only to be held at St Marys South Jcn for 2A58 (which left Derby on time at 18:52) to go first, despite the latter having to call at Duffield and Belper before going inside onto the branch at Ambergate. 2A58 was then put inside the loop at St Marys North, just one signal section later, for 1S55 to pass, putting a further seven minutes into the express and four minutes into the stopper. Can anyone advise how this delay was attributed? I wouldn't at all be surprised to see it dobbed to the previous late-running of the express...

As a side note, problems start when signallers make good decisions which benefit the overall service, but then have delay minutes put down to “them”. As another poster correctly said, if you keep regularly getting large delay minutes put down to you, your manager will start asking questions. You then get signallers start regulating to avoid being booked for delays, and not managing a decent service.

That was always my perception of the problem. It's not so much of a lack of incentive for good regulation as a lack of disincentive for lazy regulation. I always tried my best to keep everything moving in my admittedly relatively quiet part of the world, and sometimes ran freights (or even diverted passenger trains - my personal best was something like 17 minutes early!) early on quite tight margins to make better use of the trainset when others were late - I was always able to justify what I'd done to the TDA when they came chasing, but I can understand why others wouldn't want to take the risk, especially in a busier location with many more decisions to make. It's simpler to just take the easy option when any delay will go down to whatever was running late anyway, with TOCs and FOCs apparently rarely disputing delay minutes on the basis of poor regulation.

 

[JN114]

Basing priority on numbers of passengers onboard is a Rabbit Warren and a half to be going down - if you’ve got 1200 people on a 12 car commuter train up against a long distance / intercity train with 300 people it becomes more appropriate to put 30 minutes into the long distance train; which will go on to encounter other trains etc, than it is to put 8 minutes into the commuter train for which the delays will be relatively self-contained and more easily recoverable. It’d be a difficult pill to swallow for those 300 who’ve travelled 100 miles and paid 10x the price to say they’re now going to be delayed by a further 20 minutes (on top of the 10 so far because of xyz earlier) because the maths says the 1200 people on the slow train ahead should be a priority.

Regulation is already geared towards minimising overall delay. It’s virtually line 1 of the job description of all controllers and signallers.

It’s not a binary process, signallers and controllers aren’t just looking at A vs B.

 

[edwin_m]

If they get the new train advisory systems right they should be able to allow the effects of different decisions to be foreseen, and that could potentially include numbers of passengers per train and hence total passenger-minutes delay from trains directly and indirectly affected by the decision. Whether this actually happens depends on how well they are implemented. I think I read somewhere that one TOC was trialling a measure based on passenger delays rather than train delays, and this was the criterion used in the LUL PPPs.