SWR - Not holding train

[Goldfish62]

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

Not when I moved that way in 1991, no.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

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

Worked on that road for a bit in late 70's and never had splitters at Ascot in my time there, or since AFAIR. Through services Guildford to Waterloo via Ascot, mostly Cig's, with separate Reading-Waterloo's, also largely Cig worked. The CWN for May 77 to May 78 bears this out.
On Sundays for this period there was a Guildford-Ascot shuttle, and also a Reading-Ascot shuttle in the afternoon, with separate Reading-Waterloo service.

Going back a bit, the CWN for Oct 72 to May 73 does show splitters, mostly Cig operated again. Timings were generally xx59 from Waterloo, due Ascot xx45, front portion forward to Reading at xx48, rear portion to Guildford at xx49. (I don't think NR Planning rules would allow a one minute gap between first and second departures from the same divided train these days, even if diverging routes are involved. How things change!). Peak timings differ slightly with some additional services to the standard pattern, but still splitting.

On the UP, xx04 from Guildford arrived Ascot xx51 and a 1/2, with xx30 from Reading arriving at xx53 and a 1/2, the combined going forward at xx56.

I presume this splitting pattern was essentially similar to when the BIL's worked the service. Bit before my time, job wise.

 

[Bikeman78]

Looking at RTT, it looks like the train departed RT. It’s a difficult one. Unfortunately had the guard waited, he would likely have departed late and got a letter/email from performance asking for an explanation. At least at the TOCs I’ve worked at, holding a train like this requires authorisation from control.

In the modern safety conscious world, the guard could simply say that it wasn't safe to depart whilst people were running towards the train from the train. Had I been one of the passengers, I'd have held the doors closest to the bridge open until everyone had made it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

It used to annoy me at Brockenhurst when a tight connection off a slightly-late Cross-Country train was missed. The defence would be that it connected with the ferry at Lymington and thus in turn the bus from Yarmouth to Freshwater.

Used to being the operative words. Most XC trains don't stop anymore. Problem "solved."

 

[najaB]

Had I been one of the passengers, I'd have held the doors closest to the bridge open until everyone had made it.

That's a good way to lose a finger, depending on the stock concerned.

Many units will close all doors when the guard hits the close button from his local door and won't reopen for a trapped object.

 

[davews]

I well remember the Ascot splits in the early 1970s. Not sure when they stopped though.

 

[g492p]

In the modern safety conscious world, the guard could simply say that it wasn't safe to depart whilst people were running towards the train from the train. Had I been one of the passengers, I'd have held the doors closest to the bridge open until everyone had made it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==


Used to being the operative words. Most XC trains don't stop anymore. Problem "solved."

It depends on how far away passengers are. If they are far enough away then you can deem it safe to leave. I don’t think in this case there is any suggestion that what the guard did was unsafe. Also on holding the doors, how long are you going to hold them for? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? A delay like that leaving a terminus station on many trains I work would result in many missed connections. Not to mention that holding the doors is an illegal act.

 

[Deepgreen]

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.

In those cases I assume/hope that no penalties are applied for what is a basic service expectation for the passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

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.

Perhaps because that used to be/should be a basic expectation for a service-orientated railway.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps because that used to be/should be a basic expectation for a service-orientated railway.

That's exactly my point - we almost exclusively hear about the instances where things go contrary to those expectations. So we don't have an accurate picture of how commonly (or not) trains are being allowed to depart rather than being held when it would be possible to do so without impacting service overall.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Plenty of TOCs do have connectional policies for various stations and reactionary delays are attributed exactly as you describe.

 

[Deepgreen]

That's exactly my point - we almost exclusively hear about the instances where things go contrary to those expectations. So we don't have an accurate picture of how commonly (or not) trains are being allowed to depart rather than being held when it would be possible to do so without impacting service overall.

OK - I suspect it's because people tend to post about bad news rather than good.

 

[najaB]

OK - I suspect it's because people tend to post about bad news rather than good.

Yup. When I worked in technical support for Brand X (a major broadband supplier), I had a new-start ask, completely unironically, "Why would anybody get Brand X broadband, it's always broken".

 

[Deepgreen]

Yup. When I worked in technical support for Brand X (a major broadband supplier), I had a new-start ask, completely unironically, "Why would anybody get Brand X broadband, it's always broken".

Did that person become Head of Marketing?!

 

[Sean Emmett]

Problem at Ascot is that there will be an up train from Aldershot waiting for the down train to vacate P3. If the down train is held too long then the pax on the up train would miss their connections. Not an easy one, hope the staff use their common sense.

When St Ives branch went half hourly the publicity made it clear there were tight timings, and that trains would not wait at St Erth for mainline connections as it would throw whole timetable out, return train would be late and miss connections for pax starting from St Ives etc.

Anyway, yesterday my GWR IET was half hour late into Exeter St Davids, but the Okehampton train was held for a 4 mins late departure to allow the connection. Dozen or so pax were grateful, including me. I had started my journey from Ascot.

Edit. My Oke train made the Newton St Cyres request stop so did not regain time to Crediton. From RTT the up train waiting for us at Crediton was only a minute late at St Davids, and on time at Central.

 

[Goldfish62]

Problem at Ascot is that there will be an up train from Aldershot waiting for the down train to vacate P3. If the down train is held too long then the pax on the up train would miss their connections. Not an easy one, hope the staff use their common sense.

There's normally seven minutes scheduled between the train departing and the next one arriving. A wait of no more than a minute for late passengers wouldn't impact that.

On the day in question only an hourly service was operating so the next train most certainly would not have been approaching Ascot!

 

[nw1]

Who is the customer, though? The ones on the platform trying to make the connection or the ones already on the train who may themselves have a connection to make further down the line? Is it good customer service to delay a train, causing it to miss its slot at a busy interchange or causing knock-on delays to other services?

I’m not asking in order to start an argument, but in the event of late running there will always be someone inconvenienced no matter what course of action is taken. Given the size and complexity of the web of potential consequences, it’s impossible for there to be a “right” course of action.

In this specific instance, could the guard have hung on a little? Perhaps. I’ve certainly known guards do it, but as things stand the decision will rest with the individual.

I would imagine, in this case, the number of people transferring onto the Ascot-Aldershot from the London direction would be considerably greater than the number of people starting their journeys at Ascot. So if the "please the most number of people" principle is followed, then holding the train would seem the best option.

5 March was a Sunday, with less-frequent services, so even though there are potential pathing conflicts with Alton services, I doubt holding the train 1 or 2 extra minutes would cause a major problem.

 

[Taunton]

I would imagine, in this case, the number of people transferring onto the Ascot-Aldershot from the London direction would be considerably greater than the number of people starting their journeys at Ascot. So if the "please the most number of people" principle is followed, then holding the train would seem the best option.

I already covered this one above. The number normally starting at (the rather remote) Ascot, and indeed at stations immediately down the Aldershot line, especially at off-peak, is normally close to zero. The old Southern Railway knew what they were doing when the service was arranged as a splitter from London, half the train to Reading, half to Aldershot (in fact, passengers are principally for Bagshot and especially Camberley, the first two stops). If anyone from SWR is wittering on about hordes of inconvenienced Ascot-starting passengers then they have no idea of their train custom.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Mar 2023 ==

Going back a bit, the CWN for Oct 72 to May 73 does show splitters, mostly Cig operated again. Timings were generally xx59 from Waterloo, due Ascot xx45, front portion forward to Reading at xx48, rear portion to Guildford at xx49. (I don't think NR Planning rules would allow a one minute gap between first and second departures from the same divided train these days, even if diverging routes are involved. How things change!).

Not allowed by planning rules ... this is typical of what has happened on the SW, every signalling change leads to less flexibility and pro-activeness than the one before. Most notable at the level crossings on the Richmond line, which for a given service frequency have much more down time than hitherto. When they had individual gate boxes (long ago) the gatekeeper/signalman could time to the second (both ways at once) when to drop them, minimising the delay to both road users and trains. Come the Feltham box and it was notably longer. Recent resignalling has again extended the times.

It certainly used to be possible to depart Ascot at one minute intervals. The points are right at the end of the platform. If the platforms were rearranged to put a bay in the west end of the island, letting go of the other platforms, then the shuttle could cross-platform connect both ways instead of the present tedious arrangement. It would also not allow the Aldershot to be sent off while the Reading was signalled through the main platform, any delay being attributed to TOC-on-TOC, which would doubtless concentrate the minds of SWT control to dealing with the tedious problems up the line that regularly cause the lateness. And it's not as if the lethargic schedules are too tight ...

 

[Craig1122]

I already covered this one above. The number normally starting at (the rather remote) Ascot, and indeed at stations immediately down the Aldershot line, especially at off-peak, is normally close to zero. The old Southern Railway knew what they were doing when the service was arranged as a splitter from London, half the train to Reading, half to Aldershot (in fact, passengers are principally for Bagshot and especially Camberley, the first two stops). If anyone from SWR is wittering on about hordes of inconvenienced Ascot-starting passengers then they have no idea of their train custom.
[

Don't think splitting like that would work any more given the imbalance in custom (although that's probably partly as a result of the service being so bad towards Camberley). For a fair bit of the day you actually need full length trains out of Reading. They can actually be standing room only from Bracknell towards London in the evening.