SWR - Not holding train

[Deepgreen]

This is typical in the UK; we are not customer focussed, unlike many other countries.

This is a direct result of privatisation. TOCs have become so ludicrously obsessed with having their trains run on time (rather than the passengers) that some staff are acting/being told to act like robots and having no chance or ability to apply commonsense or consideration to their operations. I used to commute from Betchworth via Redhill and it was a frequent occurrence for my train to have arrived and tens of passengers be crossing the island to a London train, only to have the doors close as we reached them and the train leave, with platform and train staff fully aware of what was happening. Heated scenes often ensued. The farce of it was that that train was booked to wait outside East Croydon for four minutes, so a 15-20 second wait at Redhill would have made no difference to any other trains or timekeeping (there were no conflicts at Purley either). This is symptomatic of the contract-run railway rather than the service-based one.

 

[Krokodil]

At least at the TOCs I’ve worked at, holding a train like this requires authorisation from control.

Easily answered by the simple reply of "the train from X was running late and people were flinging themselves at my train so I waited until I was certain the Platform Train Interface was clear for the train to depart safely".

Use it regularly myself. I won't depart with people running at my train.

There used to be a TDA code for "passengers forcing connection". I'm not sure what happened to it. I certainly wouldn't be despatching a train if passengers were at risk of making contact with it, I'd rather argue a delay than find myself in court on a manslaughter charge.

When I asked the station staff why they didn't wait, I was told "they're not designed to connect".

My response would be "why the hell not?"

I have had to leave before the arrival of a RRB before (the planners hadn't accounted for roadworks when doing the timings). The first two buses had arrived and with the passengers already onboard had packed out my train. Control refused permission for a hold for the third so we had to go right time - though given the number of passengers already on the train, not to mention those who would join at the next six stops, someone was going to be left behind one way or another.

 

[Deepgreen]

There used to be a TDA code for "passengers forcing connection". I'm not sure what happened to it. I certainly wouldn't be despatching a train if passengers were at risk of making contact with it, I'd rather argue a delay than find myself in court on a manslaughter charge.


My response would be "why the hell not?"

I have had to leave before the arrival of a RRB before (the planners hadn't accounted for roadworks when doing the timings). The first two buses had arrived and with the passengers already onboard had packed out my train. Control refused permission for a hold for the third so we had to go right time - though given the number of passengers already on the train, not to mention those who would join at the next six stops, someone was going to be left behind one way or another.

"Not designed to connect"! This is it in a nutshell - the pointless formalisation of what connects and what doesn't even though it will be blindingly obvious that passengers should be allowed to join an hourly service for the want of a few seconds! It makes me despair that this ridiculous system has held sway for so long - commonsense and logic (and, by the way, pride in the job to a large extent) have given way to contractual clauses and KPIs, leaving passengers stranded and staff prone to abuse. It is truly a scandal that we have got to this state with our public transport 'service'.

 

[DNCharingX]

Nowhere near the SWR network (I don't imagine Waterloo counts, haha) but damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Train leaves on time? Why has it done that?? I was (x) seconds away from boarding you couldn't have held it??

Train left late? Why has it done that?? I'm going to be late to (event) now!

I don't know the specific circumstances here to have an opinion on whether the train should have been held, though.

 

[43096]

My response would be "why the hell not?"

That was my response, too. Although they clearly are designed to connect, as proven by my delay repay claim!

 

[Bevan Price]

'Delay attribution'- a mechanism that drives behaviour. 'What gets measured gets done'; what's not measured 'doesn't count'.
It has become more important to be able to lay 'blame' and 'who will/should pay.
Something 'goes wrong', it's 'someone's' fault.
I'm with Yorkie and others on this one- so much for 'customer focus', which needs support and encouragement from 'above', not punishment.

This does demonstrate that there are useless jobsworth at all levels - including whoever devised stupid, passenger unfriendly schemes such as delay attribution -- or maybe above that level, whoever created the situation that made someone think that delay attibution was "a good idea".

 

[pokemonsuper9]

This does demonstrate that there are useless jobsworth at all levels - including whoever devised stupid, passenger unfriendly schemes such as delay attribution -- or maybe above that level, whoever created the situation that made someone think that delay attibution was "a good idea".

I think (as has been mentioned on this thread) the basic idea for delay attribution is good, if we know why delay occurs, we can try to see what we can do about it, but at this level, where delay attribution is hurting passengers instead of improving things for them, things have gone wrong.

 

[zwk500]

This does demonstrate that there are useless jobsworth at all levels - including whoever devised stupid, passenger unfriendly schemes such as delay attribution -- or maybe above that level, whoever created the situation that made someone think that delay attibution was "a good idea".

I think the problem isn't that somebody sat down and worked out the Delay attribution system, but rather that it just evolved haphazardly within BR and then had to be rehashed quite quickly as the Major government pushed privatisation through.

 

[contrex]

I remember fondly a 1950s (probably) cartoon of a train at a station, guard on the platform, green flag at the ready, porter peering out of the station into the village: "two city gents running like mad down the hill - right away Guard!'

 

[Craig1122]

I remember fondly a 1950s (probably) cartoon of a train at a station, guard on the platform, green flag at the ready, porter peering out of the station into the village: "two city gents running like mad down the hill - right away Guard!'

The argument against that is that if you hang on 30 seconds at each station for those late runners you'll accrue a pretty big delay overall. One reason why SWT targeted communication at customers as well as staff when trying to improve performance.

However in the example given in the initial post there's really no excuse.

 

[gabrielhj07]

SWR’s metro guards often seem more than happy to hold a train for a moment if they see people coming down the stairs.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think the problem isn't that somebody sat down and worked out the Delay attribution system, but rather that it just evolved haphazardly within BR and then had to be rehashed quite quickly as the Major government pushed privatisation through.

BR had a very clear vision that once the bulk of train running data could be captured automatically in Track Circuit Block/power signalled areas it would be possible to 'count' almost all delay. (Yes, I know that some areas still had to rely on 'manual' reporting.)

What isn't always appreciated that 'delay' is calculated over route sections (or late departure from originating point) whereas 'lateness' tended to only be measured at final designation or key intermediate nodes. They are not the same thing.

Having captured or 'counted' the delay there was then the realisation that a 'cause' could be added - late start waiting crew, door problem, track circuit failure, trespass, poor adhesion or whatever. For the first time it was possible to say that "x% of delays on this line are caused track circuit failures, what can we do about it?". I.e. basic performance management. This is fine for 'primary delay' - where a train is stopped at a signal because of a track circuit failure and it takes a few minutes to be talked by but obviously there can be reactionary consequences further on it the journey because of lost path, delays to other trains, late start on return journey and so on. So a five-minute track circuit failure might cause another 95 minutes of reactionary delay. All of this can be linked to the original incident, to obtain a clear understanding of the importance of stopping the track circuit from failing in the first place.

There is no reason why an agreed/approved connectional policy at an intermediate station cannot lead to delays to connecting services in accordance with the policy being linked to the primary incident. This was always understood.

Even when the original franchises were let there was a concept of Designated Connections for which no blame would attach to a connecting TOC, e.g. Central Trains holding a Lincoln connection from an ECML service. Obviously the total amount of recorded delay remains the same regardless of the cause(s) or how many separate primary incidents are created.

The situation at Ascot seems to be a classic demonstration of the maxim that "failing to plan is planning to fail". Fundamentally if SWR plan their services in detail (particularly when frequencies are low, such as on Sunday evenings) and further knock-on effects are minimal there is no reason why the 'guard's docket' shouldn't include a comment that the xx:yy Ascot-Aldershot may be held up to z minutes to maintain connection from Waterloo. The z minutes will be added to the original incident.

 

[zwk500]

The situation at Ascot seems to be a classic demonstration of the maxim that "failing to plan is planning to fail". Fundamentally if SWR plan their services in detail (particularly when frequencies are low, such as on Sunday evenings) and further knock-on effects are minimal there is no reason why the 'guard's docket' shouldn't include a comment that the xx:yy Ascot-Aldershot may be held up to z minutes to maintain connection from Waterloo. The z minutes will be added to the original incident.

While I agree with the rest of your post, in this situation the problem is about communication - the guard needs to know that the train they are holding for will arrive within z minutes, otherwise they may as well depart on time. However in this incident, with both trains at the platform, there was no reason at all not to wait. GWR have coded consequential delays to the Thames Valley branches for holding connections to the root cause incident on many occasions.

 

[Craig1122]

BR had a very clear vision that once the bulk of train running data could be captured automatically in Track Circuit Block/power signalled areas it would be possible to 'count' almost all delay. (Yes, I know that some areas still had to rely on 'manual' reporting.)

All of this can be linked to the original incident, to obtain a clear understanding of the importance of stopping the track circuit from failing in the first place.

An excellent post. For all those who maintain that delay attribution is a load of nonsense these are really the key points. Without understanding what is causing your delays there's little chance of directing investment and management towards resolving them. This might be in the form of replacing key pieces of infrastructure which are failing frequently or tackling poor performance by members of staff or contractors.

It absolutely doesn't have to mean that decisions are made that aren't in the interest of customers. If that happens it's a management issue not the fault of a system being in place to try & understand the reason for delays.

 

[norbitonflyer]

They wouldn't usually have the assistance of platform staff here to ask people on the platform to stand out of the way. One does have to wonder if they really were satisfied that it was safe for the train to depart.

Quite. If they were that close and running there was a danger of falling under the train. Por customer service or not, this is also a safety issue. (A guard was convicted for manslaughter a few years ago for less)

 

[AlterEgo]

Quite. If they were that close and running there was a danger of falling under the train. Por customer service or not, this is also a safety issue. (A guard was convicted for manslaughter a few years ago for less)

No, he was convicted of manslaughter for quite a lot more - dispatching the train when a woman was literally leaning against the train.

 

[norbitonflyer]

No, he was convicted of manslaughter for quite a lot more - dispatching the train when a woman was literally leaning against the train.

It's debatable which is more likely to result in falling under a train - running full pelt towards it or leaning on it. Having ended up under a train through running for one once (the doors were still open, but I tripped) I can attest that it can happen.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's debatable which is more likely to result in falling under a train - running full pelt towards it or leaning on it. Having ended up under a train through running for one once (the doors were still open, but I tripped) I can attest that it can happen.

Not just leaning on the train, but leaning on it and the train then being moved in an unlawful act by the guard, who saw clearly the person leaning against his train. The person fell because the train moved, and was killed because the train moved.

 

[najaB]

Given that I’ve known guards and dispatchers to hang on for stragglers, I would have to say on balance that individual instances of poor service are not necessarily indicative of a lack of customer focus.

I don't recall anyone ever starting a thread here to say "The guard held the train so that we could make the connection", yet we know that this does happen. Could it be that what we're seeing is a biased sample? Nah, can't be that.

 

[zwk500]

I don't recall anyone ever starting a thread here to say "The guard held the train so that we could make the connection", yet we know that this does happen. Could it be that what we're seeing is a biased sample? Nah, can't be that.

Thing is people expect services to be held for them personally, so don't think much of it other than maybe give a thanks to the guard and carry on. Whereas the train departing early when they're running for it is often treated like a personal insult, and so they take more readily to complaining.

 

[Class800]

I don't recall anyone ever starting a thread here to say "The guard held the train so that we could make the connection", yet we know that this does happen. Could it be that what we're seeing is a biased sample? Nah, can't be that.

I mentioned an example, if you have read the thread before posting

 

[najaB]

I mentioned an example, if you have read the thread before posting

Did you start a thread about it? If so, then apologies and I'll update my statement: "I only remember one instance of someone starting a thread to say that a train was held for them so they could make the connection".

 

[Krokodil]

Not just leaning on the train, but leaning on it and the train then being moved in an unlawful act by the guard, who saw clearly the person leaning against his train. The person fell because the train moved, and was killed because the train moved.

A guard who sees someone pelting for their train but still dispatches could well find themselves in court in the same way. Legal types make a fortune by working with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[AlterEgo]

A guard who sees someone pelting for their train but still dispatches could well find themselves in court in the same way. Legal types make a fortune by working with the benefit of hindsight.

They might, but that’s not related to whether dispatching with a person leaning against the train (an indefensibly dangerous act) is a more dangerous act than simply running for one.

 

[Taunton]

I have written here multiple times for years about this. Put Ascot and my username into the search and you will find them all.

The connection time at Ascot used to be 10 minutes. It was common that if the fast lines from Clapham Junction to Barnes were closed (all too frequently, including Network Rail holding their works trains on them) the Reading train would be delayed about 10 minutes by the stopper ahead, not make any time up, get to Ascot still 10, and yet again have people running for the connection having the doors slammed in their face.

For those who bleat on about how "all" the other passengers will be inconvenienced by waiting, there's hardly any local traffic starting westwards at Ascot; if there are not connecting passengers on board the Camberley/Aldershot train effectively leaves empty. The majority of the branch service users are those connecting at Ascot.

Actually, I blame Roger Ford in Modern Railways magazine, and his self-publicist "Golden Whistles" annual award, which works wholly on recorded times of trains against the timetable, in a league table to fractional percentage points, and doesn't give any concern to how connecting passengers may have been inconvenienced. The managers who get their smiling faces in the mag at the awards don't seem the sort who give the connecting passengers left on the platform to achieve these accolades any concern.

I did once read that the short Stourbridge shuttle, when operated by a single diesel car, had a comparable issue, but would leave on time from Stourbridge Junction, quite empty, even if the delayed inbound connection could be seen running in, get to Stourbridge just a couple of minutes later, record an on time arrival for the statistics (the important bit), then go straight back as an extra unscheduled service and pick the passengers up to avoid them having too much delay on a cold winter evening!

 

[43096]

Actually, I blame Roger Ford in Modern Railways magazine, and his self-publicist "Golden Whistles" annual award, which works wholly on recorded times of trains against the timetable, in a league table to fractional percentage points, and doesn't give any concern to how connecting passengers may have been inconvenienced. The managers who get their smiling faces in the mag at the awards don't seem the sort who give the connecting passengers left on the platform to achieve these accolades any concern.

I thought Roger Ford did the Golden Spanners for train reliability, not the whistles?

But quite a leap to blame an awards ceremony. Simple truth is you can’t have a right-time railway and be holding connections. The answer is to sort out performance properly so you don’t need to hold connections.

 

[43066]

It's debatable which is more likely to result in falling under a train - running full pelt towards it or leaning on it. Having ended up under a train through running for one once (the doors were still open, but I tripped) I can attest that it can happen.

I don’t think there’s any debate as far as potential liability is concerned. If you move a train when you know someone is leaning on it that’s a clear act of negligence towards their safety. However, if the dispatch corridor is clear, it will be fine to dispatch. Someone running over a footbridge/along a platform towards the train wouldn’t affect that until they were very close.

 

[Minstral25]

This is a direct result of privatisation. TOCs have become so ludicrously obsessed with having their trains run on time (rather than the passengers) that some staff are acting/being told to act like robots and having no chance or ability to apply commonsense or consideration to their operations. I used to commute from Betchworth via Redhill and it was a frequent occurrence for my train to have arrived and tens of passengers be crossing the island to a London train, only to have the doors close as we reached them and the train leave, with platform and train staff fully aware of what was happening. Heated scenes often ensued. The farce of it was that that train was booked to wait outside East Croydon for four minutes, so a 15-20 second wait at Redhill would have made no difference to any other trains or timekeeping (there were no conflicts at Purley either). This is symptomatic of the contract-run railway rather than the service-based one.

I've seen the heated scenes at Redhill off GW trains. A connection from Betchworth is suppose to be 10 minutes at Redhill, it is unlikely the train that would be in P2 when you arrived in P1 was the planned connection but an earlier train and there would be another train within 15 minutes for London which was the timetabled connection. It doesn't stop the frustration of passengers seeing a train there and expecting to get on it.

It's worse the other way when GW trains are not held as there would be many people coming from London missing a train which often has an hour or more before the next one, but still a lot of people expecting a 2 minute (non) connection to be held for them, for which they should have been on an earlier train from London as it wasn't the timetabled connection.

 

[Goldfish62]

The issue of the "branch" trains not being held at Ascot for a few seconds goes back years and was certainly happening in NSE days.

I've witnessed plenty of occasions when station staff have requested that the train be held briefly and this is ignored.

 

[Taunton]

The issue of the "branch" trains not being held at Ascot for a few seconds goes back years and was certainly happening in NSE days.

Was the service back in NSE days not run with trains dividing at Ascot, one set for Reading, one set for Aldershot?

It was described to me long ago that the revision was done, firstly to save a shunter's wages at Ascot, and secondly if the train was delayed in London it was reported as two late trains once divided, whereas if the Aldershot train was run independently that could depart to time and improve the reported figures.

A notable aggravation is the Reading train then has a slack schedule approaching its end, so although late enough to miss the connection at Ascot, it can be within the right time when reported at the terminus.