Poor platform allocating at Liverpool Lime Street

[zwk500]

I was not pointing the finger, but you've hit the nail on the head. The tighter timescales at the moment don't help either.

I'll qualify it by saying that MK can often not help itself! Certainly the timescales really don't help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Mar 2023 ==

First of all Lime St controls are in the interlocking on all platforms with the exception of 7 and 8.

Out of interest, what kind of quirks of Lime St Controls trip the timetable planners up? AFAIK they're not mentioned in any of the train planning documentation (the TPRs only have the normal 30 second allowance for an occupied platform).

 

[louis97]

Wow. Let's unpick how much of this is wrong.

First of all Lime St controls are in the interlocking on all platforms with the exception of 7 and 8.

Lime St Workstation has no ARS at all.

ARS as fitted to workstations in Manchester ROC has no idea what stock is allocated to a service and as such cannot judge train lengths.

I assume you missed the "assuming the scheme went ahead as planned". Which clearly it didn't. I've had a look at the current signal plan, and it is as you said, all I had was the scheme plan earlier.

The original plan was that ARS would use the track circuit occupation (LLAM/LLBP/LLCS/LLDN) to work out the length of the stock arriving (if it was longer than 4x 23 metre stock), these are the circuits used for the Lime Street control. I did wonder if ARS ever went ahead given I suspected it would spend most of its time switched off (I suspect all of it).

I assume you work at Lime Street, do you know any reason for the increased use of LL9074 for departures instead of going straight to LL5076? Is there a set of points out of use or is there just a preference for certain moves? (or have I just been there at the right time?)

 

[Trothy]

The main reason would be to allow incoming services to arrive into platforms 1 and 2 while simultaneously departing from 3-5.
This has become a lot more relevent recently as signal 5071 has been signed out of use for weeks due to a defective theatre indicator with no spare available.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Mar 2023 ==

Out of interest, what kind of quirks of Lime St Controls trip the timetable planners up? AFAIK they're not mentioned in any of the train planning documentation (the TPRs only have the normal 30 second allowance for an occupied platform).

The measuring tracks for the Lime St controls are approx 120m, which means that all 5 car sets are incapable of platform sharing. So all TPE sets aside from single 185's can be problematic.
Also several platforms are *just* too short for double set 319's or 350's.

Not all the planning issues are directly related to the Lime St Controls but as you say I dont think they are mentioned in the TPR's. Unlike say Manchester Victoria where the bays are specifically mentioned.

 

[louis97]

The main reason would be to allow incoming services to arrive into platforms 1 and 2 while simultaneously departing from 3-5.
This has become a lor more relevent recently as signal 5071 has been signed out of use for weeks due to a defective theatre indicator with no spare available.

Ah yes I had noticed more trains arriving into the station via 9073. Was there not an issue with 3067 recently? Was it a theatre indicator issue and have they swapped it with 5071 as there is a route around that? Thanks for the info.

 

[Trothy]

Yup, spare part arrived to repair 5071. A few days later theatre in 3067 went.

So as you say, the spare part went into 3067 and 5071 went back to being worked around.

Couldn't make it up.

 

[_toommm_]

They can be, if they are phrased carefully. 'The front train' to rail staff and the sort of people who post on here, obviously means the one furthest from the buffer stops which will leave first. To many (most?) other people it will mean the one in front of them.

Manchester Piccadilly does it quite good, stating the train furthest away from the barriers/buffers (delete as appropriate) to supplement the manual announcements stating the front x carriages.

It happens a lot with the peak time Hadfields. I always told people it was formed of 3 carriages 99.9% of the time so just look for that.

 

[trainophile]

Then again a train isn’t supposed to be a waiting room…

I was very grateful today that a train parked up in a platform for over half an hour served as exactly that. We were de-trained from the BHM-Hereford train at Great Malvern due to the flooding (horrendous rain, never seen anything like it before), station closed, buses apparently requested, no shelter, platforms inches deep in water... Finally a train arrived that was bound for BHM but not departing for about 40 minutes, and the lovely guard suggested we all wait on it to keep dry and "use the facilities", there being none available at GMV. Made all the difference between feeling totally abandoned and that the railway did care about its passengers.

Eventually a coach arrived and we made it back. That interlude of consideration made all the difference though.

 

[43066]

I was very grateful today that a train parked up in a platform for over half an hour served as exactly that. We were de-trained from the BHM-Hereford train at Great Malvern due to the flooding (horrendous rain, never seen anything like it before), station closed, buses apparently requested, no shelter, platforms inches deep in water... Finally a train arrived that was bound for BHM but not departing for about 40 minutes, and the lovely guard suggested we all wait on it to keep dry and "use the facilities", there being none available at GMV. Made all the difference between feeling totally abandoned and that the railway did care about its passengers.

Eventually a coach arrived and we made it back. That interlude of consideration made all the difference though.

A great result all round, of course. Similarly there were passengers accommodated overnight on a Networker at Tonbridge a few weeks back when trains were unable to run due to snow/ice. Another example of needs must.

But that isn’t the general situation being discussed!

 

[trainophile]

I know, but I couldn't let the "waiting room" comment go!

My apologies, back to topic >>>

 

[43066]

I know, but I couldn't let the "waiting room" comment go!

It wasn’t wrong, was I?

A train isn’t a waiting room!

 

[bramling]

Then again a train isn’t supposed to be a waiting room…

I’m in two minds over this whole issue.

Most of the arguments for locking trains up in this situation seem to revolve around that it makes life more difficult for staff, and in order to stop uninitiated people ending up on the wrong train.

The concept of two trains in a platform really isn’t that difficult, and it’s one of those situations where my own view is that I don’t see why *everyone* should have to be disadvantaged in order to assuage the dumb.

Especially in the current climate, it is these little details which will stop the railway becoming a pure distress purchase. Having to stand for ages on a potentially cold and windy platform simply isn’t a good shout when there’s a perfectly good train sitting there.

It was a bugbear of mine when I used to work nights in London, turning up at King’s Cross at 0445 and finding the train had been left closed up - exceedingly annoying in winter especially. Most of the time it was left open but the odd driver would leave it closed after bringing the ECS in (the London / south east area generally seems rather more relaxed than the provincial operators about leaving trains open at termini when unattended). Fortunately at King’s Cross in 365 days the station staff were always very good about this and pretty much always would ensure the train was opened up 20+ minutes before departure. From a user’s point of view, if finding trains closed up on a regular basis to be honest I would have likely switched to the car instead, as it would be enough of a nuisance to be the straw to break the camel’s back. 20-30 minutes standing on a cold platform for five days in a row really isn’t anyone’s idea of fun, especially when I could be getting on with other stuff if on the train.

Little things matter, and this is one of those things where a minimal amount of extra effort can make a difference.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The role of the DfT has not been mentioned in this thread yet but it has a real impact. Ever since 7/7 the DfT has felt it necessary to mandate various procedures in the name of security though their effectiveness may be open to debate.

For example the seemingly incessant on-board announcements are DfT policy. There is also an instruction regarding unattended trains being left open. It's not that the situation must be prevented at all costs, rather what should happen if it does. Namely if a train has been unattended and left open more than the specified limit (normally 30 minutes) then the train crew should carry out a full security check/search of the train before departure. For this to be done properly would of course require any passengers who had already boarded to leave the train while it is carried out. With society being as it is such an enforced detrainment would be likely to cause far more aggro then simply keeping the train locked.

Of course the situation could be improved by requiring trains to be left staffed at all times when at a platform but this would inevitably lead to higher costs either in crewing time or avoidable shunt moves. Good luck selling that to the DfT right now!

 

[bramling]

The role of the DfT has not been mentioned in this thread yet but it has a real impact. Ever since 7/7 the DfT has felt it necessary to mandate various procedures in the name of security though their effectiveness may be open to debate.

For example the seemingly incessant on-board announcements are DfT policy. There is also an instruction regarding unattended trains being left open. It's not that the situation must be prevented at all costs, rather what should happen if it does. Namely if a train has been unattended and left open more than the specified limit (normally 30 minutes) then the train crew should carry out a full security check/search of the train before departure. For this to be done properly would of course require any passengers who had already boarded to leave the train while it is carried out. With society being as it is such an enforced detrainment would be likely to cause far more aggro then simply keeping the train locked.

Of course the situation could be improved by requiring trains to be left staffed at all times when at a platform but this would inevitably lead to higher costs either in crewing time or avoidable shunt moves. Good luck selling that to the DfT right now!

Does this actually happen in practice? Again thinking of King’s Cross, from May 18 right through to March 2020 my regular train was 2154 from King’s Cross. This was booked to arrive ECS at 2116, and would simply be left in the platform with doors open, and the only staff involvement would typically be a cleaner walking through followed by the driver turning up a few minutes before departure time. In 365 days it was very common to have trains unattended at King’s Cross for an hour or more.

 

[XAM2175]

They can be, if they are phrased carefully. 'The front train' to rail staff and the sort of people who post on here, obviously means the one furthest from the buffer stops which will leave first. To many (most?) other people it will mean the one in front of them.

My mind turns to the practice used on several European countries of dividing platforms into sectors A, B, C and so on, then directing passengers to those sections.

Having to stand for ages on a potentially cold and windy platform simply isn’t a good shout when there’s a perfectly good train sitting there.

Even leaving aside the weather, it's a poor experience given the paucity of seating in most stations.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Does this actually happen in practice? Again thinking of King’s Cross, from May 18 right through to March 2020 my regular train was 2154 from King’s Cross. This was booked to arrive ECS at 2116, and would simply be left in the platform with doors open, and the only staff involvement would typically be a cleaner walking through followed by the driver turning up a few minutes before departure time. In 365 days it was very common to have trains unattended at King’s Cross for an hour or more.

The DfT can and does carry out unannounced audits of TOC compliance with its security rules. In this case I would guess that while the time between arrival and departure may be 38 minutes the actual time the train was genuinely unattended never breached the 30 minute limit. Quite possibly some common sense scheduling of the cleaner's walk-through helped avoid any breech.

 

[ayubdaud]

Out of interest, what kind of quirks of Lime St Controls trip the timetable planners up? AFAIK they're not mentioned in any of the train planning documentation (the TPRs only have the normal 30 second allowance for an occupied platform).

The planners at MK have the relevant information for Lime St Controls at Liverpool - no idea why they never got included with the TPRs though.

Edit: on a similar note, TPRs are missing information for Blackpool North as well

 

[43066]

The role of the DfT has not been mentioned in this thread yet but it has a real impact. Ever since 7/7 the DfT has felt it necessary to mandate various procedures in the name of security though their effectiveness may be open to debate.

For example the seemingly incessant on-board announcements are DfT policy. There is also an instruction regarding unattended trains being left open. It's not that the situation must be prevented at all costs, rather what should happen if it does. Namely if a train has been unattended and left open more than the specified limit (normally 30 minutes) then the train crew should carry out a full security check/search of the train before departure. For this to be done properly would of course require any passengers who had already boarded to leave the train while it is carried out. With society being as it is such an enforced detrainment would be likely to cause far more aggro then simply keeping the train locked.

Of course the situation could be improved by requiring trains to be left staffed at all times when at a platform but this would inevitably lead to higher costs either in crewing time or avoidable shunt moves. Good luck selling that to the DfT right now!

I must say it’s the first I’ve heard of that! I suppose there aren’t *that* many occasions when trains are left for more than 30 minutes unattended.

 

[LowLevel]

I must say it’s the first I’ve heard of that! I suppose there aren’t *that* many occasions when trains are left for more than 30 minutes unattended.

It depends on the station category and security threat level. Normally we're meant to lock our trains up if they're going to be unattended for more than a certain period of time.

 

[bramling]

The DfT can and does carry out unannounced audits of TOC compliance with its security rules. In this case I would guess that while the time between arrival and departure may be 38 minutes the actual time the train was genuinely unattended never breached the 30 minute limit. Quite possibly some common sense scheduling of the cleaner's walk-through helped avoid any breech.

It all sounds rather daft to me. So 29 minutes is safe for nothing nefarious to happen, yet after 30 minutes everyone has to wait in the cold for their safety. On the same par as many of the Covid measures.

 

[WAB]

It all sounds rather daft to me. So 29 minutes is safe for nothing nefarious to happen, yet after 30 minutes everyone has to wait in the cold for their safety. On the same par as many of the Covid measures.

And the driver reading the paper in the cab is going enforce the 'no bombs' rule how?

 

[43066]

It depends on the station category and security threat level. Normally we're meant to lock our trains up if they're going to be unattended for more than a certain period of time.

I suppose it makes sense from the point of view of preventing vandalism etc.

It all sounds rather daft to me. So 29 minutes is safe for nothing nefarious to happen, yet after 30 minutes everyone has to wait in the cold for their safety. On the same par as many of the Covid measures.

That aspect of it does rather smack of security theatre.

 

[zwk500]

It all sounds rather daft to me. So 29 minutes is safe for nothing nefarious to happen, yet after 30 minutes everyone has to wait in the cold for their safety. On the same par as many of the Covid measures.

It's one of those things where somebody decided a line had to be drawn as to what was an acceptable risk and what wasn't. Like drivers being fine to drive for 7 hours and 59 mins but not 8 hours (or whatever the numbers are).

 

[bramling]

It's one of those things where somebody decided a line had to be drawn as to what was an acceptable risk and what wasn't. Like drivers being fine to drive for 7 hours and 59 mins but not 8 hours (or whatever the numbers are).

There’s a bit of a difference there. Tiredness is something that’s measurable, and no doubt someone could make a case using evidence and statistics to say that the risk of an incident increases significantly once a particular line is crossed. Do we *really* think there’s such evidence for unattended trains at termini?

 

[Krokodil]

There’s a bit of a difference there. Tiredness is something that’s measurable, and no doubt someone could make a case using evidence and statistics to say that the risk of an incident increases significantly once a particular line is crossed. Do we *really* think there’s such evidence for unattended trains at termini?

And there's no set interval for how often staff should patrol trains. On DOO services how long does a train go without a member of staff walking through it? Surely that's just as much a security risk.

 

[bramling]

And there's no set interval for how often staff should patrol trains. On DOO services how long does a train go without a member of staff walking through it? Surely that's just as much a security risk.

That’s an interesting question as to the longest-duration DOO service. Just thinking of my local territory, there’s 2T69 2225 Kings Lynn to London King’s Cross (arr 0050) and 9W90 2311 Horsham to Peterborough (arr 0219).

However if one disregards cleaning staff, there will be DOO trains which can potentially go for an entire day without seeing staff walk through. Though of course this is unlikely to happen in practice as somewhere along the line there is likely to be staff travelling pass, RPIs etc.

Same certainly applies on LU, though again there is likely to be some level of staff presence simply from staff moving around the system in the course of their duties.

 

[zwk500]

That’s an interesting question as to the longest-duration DOO service. Just thinking of my local territory, there’s 2T69 2225 Kings Lynn to London King’s Cross (arr 0050) and 9W90 2311 Horsham to Peterborough (arr 0219).

However if one disregards cleaning staff, there will be DOO trains which can potentially go for an entire day without seeing staff walk through. Though of course this is unlikely to happen in practice as somewhere along the line there is likely to be staff travelling pass, RPIs etc.

Same certainly applies on LU, though again there is likely to be some level of staff presence simply from staff moving around the system in the course of their duties.

There's also station staff along the route and a large amount of passengers who are encouraged (however fruitlessly) to 'see it, say it, sorted'.

 

[43066]

However if one disregards cleaning staff, there will be DOO trains which can potentially go for an entire day without seeing staff walk through. Though of course this is unlikely to happen in practice as somewhere along the line there is likely to be staff travelling pass, RPIs etc.

Albeit staff travelling pass will not be doing any kind of security check, or be any more aware of their surroundings than a regular passenger. Equally Thameslink RPIs are so rare that I can imagine trains run around for days at a time without encountering any.

So essentially these trains (and DOO Southeastern trains) are unattended most of the time they’re in service!

 

[trainophile]

Out of curiosity, do trains still have the pull cord system to alert the onboard staff if there's an emergency? You never hear them mentioned these days.

 

[zwk500]

Out of curiosity, do trains still have the pull cord system to alert the onboard staff if there's an emergency? You never hear them mentioned these days.

Most trains have replaced them with the red handles of the PassCom, I think.

 

[AF91]

Platforming two departures that close together on the same platform isn't ideal but sometimes is a necessity for stock working reasons. Can be particularly tricky to avoid if stock is arriving together and then splitting to form two services. I always try to avoid it on my plans but sometimes there's just no way round it.