'Right Time' vs. 'On Time'

[edwin_m]

However, I am now puzzled on several counts; as the National Express iteration of MML is long gone, I don't suppose I'll ever know, BUT;
The trains concerned were only running around 15 minutes late; cutting out the stops meant they arrived at St Pancras 'on time' (within the loose definition for that). So why, if the penalties were so severe, did they incur them just to avoid the 'late at destination' penalty?

I can't remember what the turnaround times were on these services, but the intention may have been to ensure that the next northbound left on or near time, thus reducing the risk of later trains being similarly delayed. Northbound late running of the Turbostar would also delay the HST scheduled to overtake it at Leicester.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I can't remember what the turnaround times were on these services, but the intention may have been to ensure that the next northbound left on or near time, thus reducing the risk of later trains being similarly delayed. Northbound late running of the Turbostar would also delay the HST scheduled to overtake it at Leicester.

Thanks, yes, I can understand that and accept that a late inward service creates those problems. But the point was that the lateness was quite small - the stops skipped enabled the train to count as having an 'on time' arrival, which seemed to be MML's target.

Although Down trains may be delayed this can (or should) in my opinion be balanced by the delay certainly caused to passengers by the effective cancellation of an Up train (or, sometimes, consecutive trains) and the inability to physically board the first that does stop.

LM/LnW still have this practice although, (admittedly for self-interest), I note that they always call at Northampton (for operational reasons, presumably); but some locations suffer badly when things go awry - Cheddington did recently.

At least, now with 'Delay Repay' those inconvenienced are the ones that receive the financial recompense, although there is uncertainty in my mind about who is actually paying out.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you for that, I stand corrected. Being a freight person I had to rely for info. on passenger marketing colleagues who were clearly mis-informed.

However, I am now puzzled on several counts; as the National Express iteration of MML is long gone, I don't suppose I'll ever know, BUT;
The trains concerned were only running around 15 minutes late; cutting out the stops meant they arrived at St Pancras 'on time' (within the loose definition for that). So why, if the penalties were so severe, did they incur them just to avoid the 'late at destination' penalty?
Usually, the first service that did make a call was so overcrowded as to be impossible to board; was there also a penalty for this?
Penalties other than that of late arrival at destination were never mentioned on any performance publicity - does anyone know where these penalties are set out to the general public/taxpayer?

The usual reason for skip stopping is so that the return working can depart on time, thereby avoiding another set of penalties and further disruption as the late train causes consequential delay to other trains. Particularly if the return working is a busy, peak service (which rightly incur higher penalties), or the last train of the day with critical engineering works commencing behind it.

Occasionally it is done to get train crew who are out of hours back to base, to avoid a train being dumped somewhere.

 

[Horizon22]

Looks like i have to dust this one off again. You are talking about public times vs working times. If a TOC wants to offset its arrival time then thats up to them. A planner is not going to stick a load of time in the WTT for that reason. The only time you do is to add 30 seconds if you arrive at a terminal station on a half minute.

You need to elaborate on the timetables arent built to run on time as that is frankly rubbish. There are lots of reasons they do not, but to say we allow any old thing in is a bit offensive to be honest.

Well I know this from experience. The time taken between London Bridge and Charing Cross are all based on peak times and congestion. The vast majority of times, it is slack time.

As for those talking about 2-3L for connections yes of course, although you're already talking about something very tight. I'm surprised the minimum connection is 5min personally (and I have seen 4...), and always aim for around 8 as a minimum but appreciate it isn't always possible. I was talking about the suburban commuter journeys with are generally point-to-point.

Edit: Sorry on the 2nd point I mean that timetables on paper work absolutely, but during peak hours on certain routes just 1-2 mins out of kilter at key points will see the RT figures tumble. Some of this also comes into regulation and signaller capacity, so not solely planning. No offence intended.

 

[Horizon22]

2-3L becomes very important if trying to catch another train. Even if that connection is not an advertised one, it is very common for infrequent services to mesh badly with more frequent ones. My example used to be at Redhill, when trying to catch North Downs line departures (2 hourly in the off-peak) from trains from London. The insular nature of the privatised railway is such that trains were not held even for a few seconds when people were running down the platform to catch them. 2-3 minutes would have made the difference countless times.

Partly agree but with all the different routes there are bound to be places where it simply isn't possible to make the connections meet with even very small late running. There's the knock on impact of your North Downs service at say Guildford to SWR services for instance as a purely speculative example. Redhill is quite a bad one though and I know people who struggle to connect with the Tonbridge-Redhill line too. Ultimately though - as many of us know - timetables are so tightly built that even a small disruption can knock connections on the head.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well I know this from experience. The time taken between London Bridge and Charing Cross are all based on peak times and congestion. The vast majority of times, it is slack time.

I’m sure you’ll remember from your time working in the train planning department, that standard running times are timed to the half minute; from London Bridge to Waterloo E it is 4 minutes, and from Waterloo East to Charing Cross is 3 minutes. Many schedules, particularly in the peak, have pathing time added to get them through Ewer St Junction, or performance allowance of 1 minute to deal with the additional passenger loads causing extended dwells.

None of it is ‘slack’ time. No such concept exists.

 

[Horizon22]

I’m sure you’ll remember from your time working in the train planning department, that standard running times are timed to the half minute; from London Bridge to Waterloo E it is 4 minutes, and from Waterloo East to Charing Cross is 3 minutes. Many schedules, particularly in the peak, have pathing time added to get them through Ewer St Junction, or performance allowance of 1 minute to deal with the additional passenger loads causing extended dwells.

None of it is ‘slack’ time. No such concept exists.

Not official language of course, but yes the pathing and performance time is there and rather useful. The London Bridge section to Charing Cross actually seems rather effective. It's other areas that are of concern. This is a bit off-topic, but the point was about why service meet PPM much more than RT and some as to why this might be the case.

 

[ComUtoR]

Waterloo East to Charing Cross is 3 minutes. Many schedules, particularly in the peak, have pathing time added to get them through Ewer St Junction, or performance allowance of 1 minute to deal with the additional passenger loads causing extended dwells.

None of it is ‘slack’ time. No such concept exists.

Does the public timetable still state that there is no set time at Waterloo East when departing for The Cross ? From my perspective there is no timings or dwells at Waterloo East. We are able to depart and ignore our schedules.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does the public timetable still state that there is no set time at Waterloo East when departing for The Cross ? From my perspective there is no timings or dwells at Waterloo East. We are able to depart and ignore our schedules.

Yep I think that is correct. Standard dwell is aminute, do it quicker and you’re off early.

 

[ComUtoR]

Dwell time or departure time doesn't exist. I can leave 3 early if I wanted. Then I get held outside the platform till time !

 

[richw]

Only on time. I'm early everywhere . I'd almost forgot what a red aspect was , until I got one yesterday too.

Same on the buses I’m waiting time at every timing point. A rush hour service with added padding I found myself having to wait 8 mins. Normally it would be 10-15 late on that time even allowing for the padding!

for me less passengers and less road traffic both show the reason for late running normally

 

[Horizon22]

Yep I think that is correct. Standard dwell is aminute, do it quicker and you’re off early.

Not just on Platform D either; on B dispatchers are instructed to start the dispatch process asap. To a lesser extent at London Bridge too I think.

 

[43066]

Not just on Platform D either; on B dispatchers are instructed to start the dispatch process asap. To a lesser extent at London Bridge too I think.

Same on the Ch+ and CST bound London Bridge platforms (up direction only). No attention paid to the timetable and trains are dispatched ASAP. It’s common to leave London Bridge a couple of minutes early.

 

[221129]

So why, if the penalties were so severe, did they incur them just to avoid the 'late at destination' penalty?

Most likely to protect the set's and Crews back workings. So instead of having potentially 4+ trains late running and failing PPM it's better for everyone to inconvenience a few people by removing stops and only having one failure and not having late running all day.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Most likely to protect the set's and Crews back workings. So instead of having potentially 4+ trains late running and failing PPM it's better for everyone to inconvenience a few people by removing stops and only having one failure and not having late running all day.

Yes, I realise that, but perhaps some more details.

This is, I know, somewhat historic but seemed to be a good example of the penalty system encouraging perverse behaviour. It concerned my experience travelling (weekly) from Wellingborough to London just after the morning peak. At that time MML routinely 'non-stopped' trains South of Leicester. On al bad but typical MML day, I set out to catch the 10.08. This was 'cancelled' but ran through non-stop about 10- 15' late. It was then announced that the 10.37 was 'cancelled' and that, similarly ran through without stopping. The 11.08 did stop; but, quite pointlessly because it carried 3 trains-worth of passengers from Market Harborough and Kettering and was impossible to board. I did manage to squeeze on to the 11.37, being prepared to stand in a doorway.

The non-stopped trains were only 10-15 minutes late and presumably this course of action was taken to avoid the difficulties you outline, although (unless turn - round times were far too optimistic) logically it was primarily to avoid the penalty. My original post made the point that the construction of the penalty system meant that an operating company avoided the penalty of late arrival by effectively cancelling trains with a resultant delay of 1 to 1 1/2 hours to all the passengers from Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough (to be fair, more than an inconvenience, and to more than a few) without apparent trade-off penalty.

It's suggested above that there was a penalty for 'non-stopping' at the time (but possibly not for stopping a train with no space available) - which makes MMLs actions even more inexplicable - but it's unfortunate, in my opinion, that so much of the incentive/penalty system is not, apparently, readily available to the general public despite their interests both as prospective passengers and as tax-payers.

At that time, MML was offering extremely cheap tickets from Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield - the cheapest fare from those stations being about the same as the Wellingborough day return fare (with nothing cheaper) - and the service was 2 or 3 car 170s; I wondered at the time whether the real reason for non-stopping was simply that the trains were full & standing by Leicester (and the late running was caused by slow boarding), and that this was the real reason for not stopping. It rather sabotaged the attraction of the 'new, more frequent service' for passengers South of Leicester, though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, I realise that, but perhaps some more details.

This is, I know, somewhat historic but seemed to be a good example of the penalty system encouraging perverse behaviour. It concerned my experience travelling (weekly) from Wellingborough to London just after the morning peak. At that time MML routinely 'non-stopped' trains South of Leicester. On al bad but typical MML day, I set out to catch the 10.08. This was 'cancelled' but ran through non-stop about 10- 15' late. It was then announced that the 10.37 was 'cancelled' and that, similarly ran through without stopping. The 11.08 did stop; but, quite pointlessly because it carried 3 trains-worth of passengers from Market Harborough and Kettering and was impossible to board. I did manage to squeeze on to the 11.37, being prepared to stand in a doorway.

The non-stopped trains were only 10-15 minutes late and presumably this course of action was taken to avoid the difficulties you outline, although (unless turn - round times were far too optimistic) logically it was primarily to avoid the penalty. My original post made the point that the construction of the penalty system meant that an operating company avoided the penalty of late arrival by effectively cancelling trains with a resultant delay of 1 to 1 1/2 hours to all the passengers from Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough (to be fair, more than an inconvenience, and to more than a few) without apparent trade-off penalty.

It's suggested above that there was a penalty for 'non-stopping' at the time (but possibly not for stopping a train with no space available) - which makes MMLs actions even more inexplicable - but it's unfortunate, in my opinion, that so much of the incentive/penalty system is not, apparently, readily available to the general public despite their interests both as prospective passengers and as tax-payers.

At that time, MML was offering extremely cheap tickets from Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield - the cheapest fare from those stations being about the same as the Wellingborough day return fare (with nothing cheaper) - and the service was 2 or 3 car 170s; I wondered at the time whether the real reason for non-stopping was simply that the trains were full & standing by Leicester (and the late running was caused by slow boarding), and that this was the real reason for not stopping. It rather sabotaged the attraction of the 'new, more frequent service' for passengers South of Leicester, though.

I hope what follows helps...

Roughly speaking... When a train is delayed, the minutes ‘count’ in the ‘penatly’ System, regardless of whether it regains time or not, and therefore the ‘fines’ are paid regardless.

In the example you mention, the train would have attracted ‘fines’ for being 10-15 mins late, AND counted as a ‘part cancellation’ which would have attracted another ‘fine’. Of course who paid who through the fine syste: would have depended on why it was late in the first place.

Now, as we know, the MML south of Bedford is a busy place. Had the train carried on 10-15 mins late it would almost certainly have missed its path, which could conceivably have made it 20-25 mins late. More delay. Then, assuming a turnaround of less than 35-40 mins, it would likely have been late off Pancras (particularly if the same crew were taking it back out, and had their break scheduled), missed its path again, and could easily have been 10-15 mins late by Bedford heading North (more delay), potentially causing carnage at Leicester, Derby, etc (yet more delay). If some of the trains delayed at Leicester / Derby were going to, say Birmingham, or Edinburgh, or Cambridge, those delays could then have wide ranging impact.

I have no doubt that the controllers taking these decisions are doing so with the intention to reduce total delay to passengers. Sometimes, they get it wrong despite their best efforts. But show me someone who says they never makes a mistake at work and I’ll show you A liar.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes, I realise that, but perhaps some more details.

This is, I know, somewhat historic but seemed to be a good example of the penalty system encouraging perverse behaviour. It concerned my experience travelling (weekly) from Wellingborough to London just after the morning peak. At that time MML routinely 'non-stopped' trains South of Leicester. On al bad but typical MML day, I set out to catch the 10.08. This was 'cancelled' but ran through non-stop about 10- 15' late. It was then announced that the 10.37 was 'cancelled' and that, similarly ran through without stopping. The 11.08 did stop; but, quite pointlessly because it carried 3 trains-worth of passengers from Market Harborough and Kettering and was impossible to board. I did manage to squeeze on to the 11.37, being prepared to stand in a doorway.

The non-stopped trains were only 10-15 minutes late and presumably this course of action was taken to avoid the difficulties you outline, although (unless turn - round times were far too optimistic) logically it was primarily to avoid the penalty. My original post made the point that the construction of the penalty system meant that an operating company avoided the penalty of late arrival by effectively cancelling trains with a resultant delay of 1 to 1 1/2 hours to all the passengers from Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough (to be fair, more than an inconvenience, and to more than a few) without apparent trade-off penalty.

It's suggested above that there was a penalty for 'non-stopping' at the time (but possibly not for stopping a train with no space available) - which makes MMLs actions even more inexplicable - but it's unfortunate, in my opinion, that so much of the incentive/penalty system is not, apparently, readily available to the general public despite their interests both as prospective passengers and as tax-payers.

At that time, MML was offering extremely cheap tickets from Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield - the cheapest fare from those stations being about the same as the Wellingborough day return fare (with nothing cheaper) - and the service was 2 or 3 car 170s; I wondered at the time whether the real reason for non-stopping was simply that the trains were full & standing by Leicester (and the late running was caused by slow boarding), and that this was the real reason for not stopping. It rather sabotaged the attraction of the 'new, more frequent service' for passengers South of Leicester, though.

Shoulder peak services can actually sometimes be some of the worst because of the intensity of the peak service - peak services generally do not 'skip stop' even if they are running 10-15 late in commuter world because of the nature of the service and people getting to work on already crush-loaded services. At somewhere like Wellingborough you'd then be adding congestion to services in the rear as well on the MML. The train will lose its 'path' into London and might be delayed getting into St Pancras. Add into that at the terminal they may also have relatively short turn-around to reduce platform occupation in the peak so that the 10-15 min gets replicated or at least only partially reduced. So you get this perverse knock on effect carrying on throughout the day and the impact upon crews and stock, platform alterations and stations and so on.

As Bald Rick says the intention would be to reduce the overall amount of delay (i.e delay mins suffered x number of passengers), so once a congested peak is over, many controllers will look to amend some services to recover the timetable. Two in a row is pretty poor form though - unless of course there was some sort of infrastructure constraint. However Control teams can't always get it absolutely right every day as knowing what the absolutely best option would require understanding perfectly 10+ factors which impact performance at that exact time.

Each TOC will have some notoriously bad runners, so always good to keep an eye on websites such as this one if you are able to be flexible - although it won't be very useful currently!