Recovery time WCML to Euston & elsewhere

[LSWR Cavalier]

I remember reading the paper timetables in the 1980s, the last leg to Euston included the recovery time for the whole trip, trains non-stop from Preston had maybe 15 minutes
With a clear road a train could arrive 15 minutes early. Did this happen, was it allowed?

Has recovery time been calculated in various ways?
How is it calculated now?

 

[The Planner]

Only real "recovery" time now is the engineering allowance in schedules. No TSR and you make up time unless there is a station stop first.

 

[Mag_seven]

I remember reading the paper timetables in the 1980s, the last leg to Euston included the recovery time for the whole trip, trains non-stop from Preston had maybe 15 minutes
With a clear road a train could arrive 15 minutes early. Did this happen, was it allowed?

Has recovery time been calculated in various ways?
How is it calculated now?

I remember travelling from Glasgow to Euston in the 80s and in the middle of the day time was allowed for fast to slow line "weaves" as blocks would be taken of the fast lines for maintenance - I do recall some early arrivals at Euston if no weave look place.

 

[CW2]

When the WCML underwent a wholescale re-write with the introduction of 125mph tilting trains, as part of the West Coast upgrade programme, there was a dedicated team of experienced timetablers who beavered away for many months to craft an entirely new timetable. One of the major inputs to this was where would the engineering allowances "box time" be, and at what values. Three-way discussions took place, chaired by DfT, with NR determining the engineering / maintenance requirements, and the TOCs inputting when required to state what flexibility they had especially late night / early morning.

The actual values are determined by estimating the amount of work scheduled to take place in a given area, and an estimate made for the probable impact of any temporary speed restrictions resulting from this.
In principle it is better to spread a number of low values across the route rather than having it all in one lump near the end of the journey. In the 1980s it was often the case that trains would arrive Euston very early, particularly Saturday daytimes when there was no engineering work scheduled (all the crews resting prior to dismantling everything on Sunday). Conversely, with daytime patrolling blocks scheduled which involved weaves onto the slow lines, the engineering allowance could be insufficient, resulting in delays and congestion.

The location of the engineering allowance is also critical, especially as the network capacity gets used up. As an example, running from Euston via Northampton there would be a batch of recovery time approaching Rugby, to ensure timely presentation at this key junction. However once Daventry freight terminal opened it meant that trains were departing Daventry on time and then encountering unnecessary "box time", sometimes to the detriment of their onward path down the WCML. In the following timetable the engineering allowance was moved south of Daventry, resolving the issue.

 

[Wolfie]

When the WCML underwent a wholescale re-write with the introduction of 125mph tilting trains, as part of the West Coast upgrade programme, there was a dedicated team of experienced timetablers who beavered away for many months to craft an entirely new timetable. One of the major inputs to this was where would the engineering allowances "box time" be, and at what values. Three-way discussions took place, chaired by DfT, with NR determining the engineering / maintenance requirements, and the TOCs inputting when required to state what flexibility they had especially late night / early morning.

The actual values are determined by estimating the amount of work scheduled to take place in a given area, and an estimate made for the probable impact of any temporary speed restrictions resulting from this.
In principle it is better to spread a number of low values across the route rather than having it all in one lump near the end of the journey. In the 1980s it was often the case that trains would arrive Euston very early, particularly Saturday daytimes when there was no engineering work scheduled (all the crews resting prior to dismantling everything on Sunday). Conversely, with daytime patrolling blocks scheduled which involved weaves onto the slow lines, the engineering allowance could be insufficient, resulting in delays and congestion.

The location of the engineering allowance is also critical, especially as the network capacity gets used up. As an example, running from Euston via Northampton there would be a batch of recovery time approaching Rugby, to ensure timely presentation at this key junction. However once Daventry freight terminal opened it meant that trains were departing Daventry on time and then encountering unnecessary "box time", sometimes to the detriment of their onward path down the WCML. In the following timetable the engineering allowance was moved south of Daventry, resolving the issue.

Interesting, thanks. It presents a whole series of issues which l had never considered.

 

[MotCO]

If trains arrive too early into Euston, are there sufficient platforms to accommodate them, or do the trains have to wait time outside?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I remember letters to Modern Railways around 1964, when the WCML was littered with engineering work sites for the electrification, about "time-keeping".
A train had apparently left Crewe on time and reached Euston 39 minutes early.
It turned out to have engineering allowances of just 39 minutes, and there were no works (for once) on that date.
An arrival 39 minutes early was considered "poor timekeeping"!

Things were done better for WCRM (but not much, particularly at weekends).

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Minus 39, in bus-speak
..
Are 'engineering allowances' the same as 'recovery time', of do the terms have different meanings?

Interesting to read about timetable planning, as someone said 'nothing is so good that it cannot be improved'

I guess arriving too soon is less likely now because the railway is busier, more likely one would have to wait for a free platform

 

[Wolfie]

The only time l have got into Euston significantly early is on the last train out of Wolverhampton (2245) which is scheduled to run very slowly... Have got in 15+ mins early on occasion...

 

[Pumbaa]

Minus 39, in bus-speak
..
Are 'engineering allowances' the same as 'recovery time', of do the terms have different meanings?

Interesting to read about timetable planning, as someone said 'nothing is so good that it cannot be improved'

I guess arriving too soon is less likely now because the railway is busier, more likely one would have to wait for a free platform

There is no such thing as “recovery time”.

The closest approximation I suggest would be a performance allowance, which can be applied for a variety of different reasons. One such reason might be to provide some short term relief to specific services for additional “time”, or where there a significant number of alterations that may not be, for whatever reason, adequately captured in existing SRTs or engineering allowances.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2020 ==

This is a good example of a train with multiple types of allowances in. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/X05509/2020-08-25/detailed

Most GTR trains have a minute of performance allowance approaching the Core in either direction, though this has been applied at the South end in this instance. You can see the multiple engineering allowances covering the variety of routes that the train may encounter temporary speed restrictions on, and the pathing allowances where the train is artificially slowed to ensure it fits behind another service to avoid presenting at a location on top of another service.

 

[The Planner]

The only time l have got into Euston significantly early is on the last train out of Wolverhampton (2245) which is scheduled to run very slowly... Have got in 15+ mins early on occasion...

Timed slow line from Hanslope and has a chunk of engineering time in it, though 15 seems a push even if you ran on the fasts.

 

[Wolfie]

Timed slow line from Hanslope and has a chunk of engineering time in it, though 15 seems a push even if you ran on the fasts.

I was surprised as it normally crawls along. Actually quite pleased as l just made an earlier night bus!

 

[mmh]

There is no such thing as “recovery time”.

The closest approximation I suggest would be a performance allowance, which can be applied for a variety of different reasons. One such reason might be to provide some short term relief to specific services for additional “time”, or where there a significant number of alterations that may not be, for whatever reason, adequately captured in existing SRTs or engineering allowances.

There are however examples of extended timetabled times between stations and extended station dwell times which, whatever you call them, equate to "recovery time." Timetabling's equivalent of creative accounting perhaps, but if it's needed it's needed. People on the whole would prefer reliability. I can't agree with the notion that these timings don't exist though.

 

[The Planner]

There are however examples of extended timetabled times between stations and extended station dwell times which, whatever you call them, equate to "recovery time." Timetabling's equivalent of creative accounting perhaps, but if it's needed it's needed. People on the whole would prefer reliability. I can't agree with the notion that these timings don't exist though.

Do you mean public vs working times though?

 

[mmh]

Do you mean public vs working times though?

Public, mainly. I hardly ever look at working times unless by chance of tracking a train or looking up times for delay repay on RTT. I think for the trains I use they're rarely much different, but I've not paid much attention to the differences.

 

[Ianno87]

There are however examples of extended timetabled times between stations and extended station dwell times which, whatever you call them, equate to "recovery time." Timetabling's equivalent of creative accounting perhaps, but if it's needed it's needed. People on the whole would prefer reliability. I can't agree with the notion that these timings don't exist though.

Do you mean public vs working times though?

Or extended dwells that are effectively in place of pathing time?

 

[BigB]

This is a good example of a train with multiple types of allowances in. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/X05509/2020-08-25/detailed

Off topic I know, but I love the way this arrives at Farringdon on the Up line and leaves on the Slow line - I'd never noticed this before, but it all makes sense!

 

[mmh]

Or extended dwells that are effectively in place of pathing time?

I don't think I'm thinking of that in most cases, but it sounds like the outsider to pedantry and what I meant by creative accounting. Differing timings do exist, and again on the whole I think the passenger doesn't mind that. That they exist is apparent though, so I really don't understand the strange subterfuge around them.

 

[bramling]

Or extended dwells that are effectively in place of pathing time?

I suppose the difficulty with this is the timetable doesn't specify a reason why an extended dwell time applies, so presumably it could be for pathing, engineering or performance reasons? I must admit I've been surprised just how much variation there is in station dwell times. In some cases it can clearly been seen that this is for performance reasons (e.g. Old Street down will be half minute except between 1600 and 1900 when one minute is allowed), however in other cases there's clearly other reasons. Certainly there's Thameslink services which dwell for several minutes at Finsbury Park, though it seems in most cases this is to level up the timetable rather than for recovery purposes.

 

[The Planner]

Public, mainly. I hardly ever look at working times unless by chance of tracking a train or looking up times for delay repay on RTT. I think for the trains I use they're rarely much different, but I've not paid much attention to the differences.

Working times are what matter though, if a TOC wants to offset an arrival then that's up to them. You cannot have a public time on a ½ minute though so intermediate stops could well be different to working times and look like "padding" when it is to present a clockface timetable.

 

[mmh]

Working times are what matter though, if a TOC wants to offset an arrival then that's up to them. You cannot have a public time on a ½ minute though so intermediate stops could well be different to working times and look like "padding" when it is to present a clockface timetable.

I (think, I could be wrong!) understand, but I wasn't thinking of fractional times, but situations where train x will be in the public timetable, at say 5 minutes between y and z, but the following train will be down as, say, 8 minutes. When that happens at the final station, it's not surprising people consider it padding. There's probably a reason for it, well there must be, somebody has made that timetable.

 

[Whistler40145]

I always remember in the good old days of the seated sleepers from Liverpool Lime Street/Manchester Piccadilly that combined/split at Stafford always arrived early into London Euston, obviously lots of slack in the timetable

 

[Ianno87]

I suppose the difficulty with this is the timetable doesn't specify a reason why an extended dwell time applies, so presumably it could be for pathing, engineering or performance reasons? I must admit I've been surprised just how much variation there is in station dwell times. In some cases it can clearly been seen that this is for performance reasons (e.g. Old Street down will be half minute except between 1600 and 1900 when one minute is allowed), however in other cases there's clearly other reasons. Certainly there's Thameslink services which dwell for several minutes at Finsbury Park, though it seems in most cases this is to level up the timetable rather than for recovery purposes.

Engineering Allowance will always be shown explicitly, and is never built into dwell times.

Dwells can however include pathing and/or performance (or both).

Finsbury Park is to all intents and purposes for pathing (dwellw could not be reduced without creating a conflict before or after Finsbury Park) but also acts as performance recovery (the <1> south of Belle Isle is the formal provision for performance recovery).

 

[The Planner]

I (think, I could be wrong!) understand, but I wasn't thinking of fractional times, but situations where train x will be in the public timetable, at say 5 minutes between y and z, but the following train will be down as, say, 8 minutes. When that happens at the final station, it's not surprising people consider it padding. There's probably a reason for it, well there must be, somebody has made that timetable.

That is a TOC insertion, it plays no part in the actual timetable and keeping trains apart unless it shows in the WTT times.

 

[chorleyjeff]

I remember reading the paper timetables in the 1980s, the last leg to Euston included the recovery time for the whole trip, trains non-stop from Preston had maybe 15 minutes
With a clear road a train could arrive 15 minutes early. Did this happen, was it allowed?

Has recovery time been calculated in various ways?
How is it calculated now?

Going the other way in the 1960s some trains Euston to Blackpool were scheduled 20 minutes for the 1.25 miles from South to Central.

 

[Bald Rick]

Off topic I know, but I love the way this arrives at Farringdon on the Up line and leaves on the Slow line - I'd never noticed this before, but it all makes sense!

Strictly speaking, arrives on the Up Moorgate*, and then departs on the Down Snow Hill.

*pedantically, the line designation changes at the southbound signal immediately ‘north’ of Farringdon.

 

[43074]

I don't think I'm thinking of that in most cases, but it sounds like the outsider to pedantry and what I meant by creative accounting. Differing timings do exist, and again on the whole I think the passenger doesn't mind that. That they exist is apparent though, so I really don't understand the strange subterfuge around them.

CrossCountry often use extended dwells to help weave schedules across the network, you get the same on Thameslink when Bedford to Brighton trains are diverted via Herne Hill etc for engineering works as there are certain pathways to hit on both Midland and Brighton mainlines which if you deviate from the timetable doesn't work as it is built so heavily around them.

It's not really creative accounting though, just trying to make everything fit on a busy network so inevitably there will have to be compromises somewhere.

 

[30907]

Going the other way in the 1960s some trains Euston to Blackpool were scheduled 20 minutes for the 1.25 miles from South to Central.

Memory says that a 15min allowance at the end of the journey and nothing elsewhere was standard on LM, and that was without extra allowances for engineering works.
It worked tolerably in the days of infrequent trains because connections would generally be held.

 

[Ianno87]

CrossCountry often use extended dwells to help weave schedules across the network, you get the same on Thameslink when Bedford to Brighton trains are diverted via Herne Hill etc for engineering works as there are certain pathways to hit on both Midland and Brighton mainlines which if you deviate from the timetable doesn't work as it is built so heavily around them.

It's not really creative accounting though, just trying to make everything fit on a busy network so inevitably there will have to be compromises somewhere.

And it's better to put time into station dwells where you can rather than pathing time outside as passengers don't perceive being "delayed".

 

[chorleyjeff]

Memory says that a 15min allowance at the end of the journey and nothing elsewhere was standard on LM, and that was without extra allowances for engineering works.
It worked tolerably in the days of infrequent trains because connections would generally be held.

Aha. Connections maintained. That's how I remember it. Last time I had connecting trains booked on one ticket the connection deaparted as I and quite a few people emerged from the underpass. Not pleasant to spend time on Preston Station on a cold January night when all cafes and shops were closed. Such is progress.