Experiences of service recovery (or lack of) on GTR Great Northern

[Mattplans]

Whilst I agree that skip stopping is done to make up time I think sometimes it's about not making the Train any later. The Train would very likely continue to lose time if it stopped at all of its booked stations.

I would have to disagree. And if that is the case, perhaps there's an issue with the WTT timetable. A late running train should be able to maintain that same amount of lateness completing all booked stops, and if there is an increase in late-running, it really should not be anything above 2 minutes in the metro examples being discussed.

If the majority of trains running on time on this route can complete their stops in accordance with the timetable without accruing extra delays, I fail to see why a late-running train will accrue additional delay in the same circumstance.
I'd wager the risk of such a train becoming delayed more than it already is - especially when pathed behind a stopping service anyway - is extremely low, not accounting for any other incident that might happen.

 

[WeGoAgain]

I would have to disagree. And if that is the case, perhaps there's an issue with the WTT timetable. A late running train should be able to maintain that same amount of lateness completing all booked stops, and if there is an increase in late-running, it really should not be anything above 2 minutes in the metro examples being discussed.

If the majority of trains running on time on this route can complete their stops in accordance with the timetable without accruing extra delays, I fail to see why a late-running train will accrue additional delay in the same circumstance.
I'd wager the risk of such a train becoming delayed more than it already is - especially when pathed behind a stopping service anyway - is extremely low, not accounting for any other incident that might happen.

If I understand your initial point correctly, you are saying a delayed train is run fast and doesn't get to the destination any earlier than if it had stopped at its booked stops. In which case, if a Train is two minutes late and is run fast and doesn't make up any time (keeps it current 2 minute delay), then each stop it would have made along the journey would add around x2 minutes per stop (slowing down/stopping, opening the doors, closing the doors and accelerating again). So, with x3 stops, it would have been 6 minutes later than had it run fast. So it'd be 8 minutes delayed in total instead of the initial 2.

And then how does that timing affect the next service if at all. I believe that's what is being looked at.

 

[bramling]

I would have to disagree. And if that is the case, perhaps there's an issue with the WTT timetable. A late running train should be able to maintain that same amount of lateness completing all booked stops, and if there is an increase in late-running, it really should not be anything above 2 minutes in the metro examples being discussed.

If the majority of trains running on time on this route can complete their stops in accordance with the timetable without accruing extra delays, I fail to see why a late-running train will accrue additional delay in the same circumstance.
I'd wager the risk of such a train becoming delayed more than it already is - especially when pathed behind a stopping service anyway - is extremely low, not accounting for any other incident that might happen.

Unfortunately the way the GN works, late trains often accrue significantly increasing delay due to junction conflicts, places like Hitchin, Woolmer Green, Welwyn, Finsbury Park are all opportunities for this to happen.

However part of the reason non-stopping tends not to work very well on GN is because this also happens to such trains, so they often end up recovering very little, or often still ending up later.

Non-stopping only works if the signallers are completely bought into ensuring that the amended trains gets a good clear run. This sometimes works reasonably well between Peterborough and Hitchin, where the line has the breathing space to allow this, less well on the Cambridge line or south of Hitchin. Unfortunately, Hitchin-Peterborough is the section where non-stopping is most disruptive, due to the lack of alternative services.

It sounds flippant, however the best way for GN-side trains to run on time is for them not to be delayed in the first place. The whole Thameslink concept is a problem as it introduces so many additional opportunities for delays to occur. In 2017 you would still get delays if something went wrong at Sandy, Hitchin or Potters Bar, but you wouldn’t if it did at Haywards Heath, East Croydon or Farringdon, now you do.

 

[Mattplans]

if a Train is two minutes late and is run fast and doesn't make up any time (keeps it current 2 minute delay), then each stop it would have made along the journey would add around x2 minutes per stop (slowing down/stopping, opening the doors, closing the doors and accelerating again). So, with x3 stops, it would have been 6 minutes later than had it run fast. So it'd be 8 minutes delayed in total instead of the initial 2.

Yes this is the premise I disagree with. Because in the train's timetable, all of this is already accounted for. It's not like it is doing anything extraordinary or out of course, only what has already been accounted for in the timetable. Therefore, a train which is running 5 minutes late should be able to maintain that lateness, and any extensions to that delay wouldn't be because it's doing what it was already timetabled to do..

You say:

then each stop it would have made along the journey would add around x2 minutes per stop

but if this was the case, then surely every train which was running on-time would be delayed an additional 2 minutes at every stop? But that doesn't happen, because all of the duties (ie accelerating, doors, etc) you suggest would delay a train are accounted for in the timetable.

Here's an example : https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C18592/2026-05-28/detailed#allox_id=0
This train left its' origin 8L and maintains that late running even though it performs all the stops it was scheduled for.

However, if a fast train were making additional calls, I would expect that to add some significant delays because it hasn't been timetabled (with the acceleration/deceleration/doors/camera checks) to do this - but that isn't what we're discussing here.

Therefore, a train running 2 minutes late, and pathed behind a stopper (meaning it couldn't possibly make up that time anyway), shouldn't have it's stops pulled. Doing so is fruitless and it's what TOCs seem to be doing on a daily basis to no consequence and it needs to stop.

 

[Failed Unit]

Last night was a good example. The stopping train that the 1832 Welwyn garden city - Sevenoaks followed had 6 additional stops. Welham Green, Brookmans Park, Hadley Wood, Alexander Palace, Hornsey and Harringey. So running it non stop was never going to make any difference. After New Southgate its last book stop if it had increased delays even in normal services it would have caught up and followed the Moorgate into Finsbury Park.

I expect the controller expected this to be signalled onto the fast at Welwyn Garden City. Had this happened the objective of having it ontime at Finsbury Park would be me. In this situation I could see why Hatfield was skipped. On getting to Marshmoor the nearest service on the fast was a WGC so moving it would have really not impacted it much but got a Thameslink train in the core ontime.

 

[MikeWM]

It’s interesting that there has been some level of local desire for 2tph to Kings Lynn, however this does seem to be a case of less being more - 1tph of 8-car trains seems to be the most that can be reliably supported, even if Ely North Junction were removed as a constraint. All-day 2tph would probably need full redoubling to work reliably.

Yes, FLUA have been calling for this for as long as I remember, but I don't see any justification outside the peaks (other than 'more trains are nice to have'), particularly after the 8-car project - they'd be carting a lot of fresh air around, even before you start to worry about them getting in the way of each other. Enhancing the frequency of pretty much everything else that goes through Ely North should get priority over this.

The fallout from yesterday continues today somewhat, with 1T48 (the 0946 ELY-KGX) only being 4 carriages. That'll be *really* cosy after Cambridge, especially with it still being half-term...

 

[sharpener]

I expect the controller expected this to be signalled onto the fast at Welwyn Garden City. Had this happened the objective of having it ontime at Finsbury Park would be me. In this situation I could see why Hatfield was skipped.

Aren't the controllers and signallers co-located so they can agree on this kind of thing before a final decision is made? As others have mentioned, with outer suburban services being mixed with long distance traffic on the fasts if you lose your path through any of several bottlenecks it is very hard to make up the time subsequently.

I travel this route only occasionally now but as it happens will be on the lookout tomorrow.

 

[Failed Unit]

It happens a lot more since the signaling was moved to York. Some say it ARS.

The priority at Digswell going south has always been a mystery.

Sometimes they use the fasts, sometimes they don’t. As a passenger you never know if you should get on the first to depart or the one skipping stops. My money is on first to depart.

In both of these fatalities the incident happened north of Welwyn Garden City so the Moorgate services should in theory have improved. In the peak the got worse because of platform congestion at Welwyn Garden City. Not sure how the driver diagrams interwork. The Moorgate’s were as much of a loss as the long distance travel.

 

[bramling]

It happens a lot more since the signaling was moved to York. Some say it ARS.

The priority at Digswell going south has always been a mystery.

Sometimes they use the fasts, sometimes they don’t. As a passenger you never know if you should get on the first to depart or the one skipping stops. My money is on first to depart.

In both of these fatalities the incident happened north of Welwyn Garden City so the Moorgate services should in theory have improved. In the peak the got worse because of platform congestion at Welwyn Garden City. Not sure how the driver diagrams interwork. The Moorgate’s were as much of a loss as the long distance travel.

Definitely got a lot worse since signalling went to York, however in their latter years King’s Cross PSB seemed a bit afraid of their shadow too. It seemed like certain signallers were prepared to make decisions, whilst others just kept everything religiously to the booked order and route.

 

[jon0844]

It happens a lot more since the signaling was moved to York. Some say it ARS.

The priority at Digswell going south has always been a mystery.

Sometimes they use the fasts, sometimes they don’t. As a passenger you never know if you should get on the first to depart or the one skipping stops. My money is on first to depart.

In both of these fatalities the incident happened north of Welwyn Garden City so the Moorgate services should in theory have improved. In the peak the got worse because of platform congestion at Welwyn Garden City. Not sure how the driver diagrams interwork. The Moorgate’s were as much of a loss as the long distance travel.

Given many Hitchin drivers work the inners, it doesn't take long for problems when the viaduct/mainline is cut off.

 

[Failed Unit]

Given many Hitchin drivers work the inners, it doesn't take long for problems when the viaduct/mainline is cut off.

I guess that is also why the do the extra stops on Thameslink trains at WGC when there is disruption. Get traincrew to where they are needed. Thank you for that, certainly explains why the inners were so badly hit during the.Peak following both fatalities.

 

[WAB]

Aren't the controllers and signallers co-located so they can agree on this kind of thing before a final decision is made? As others have mentioned, with outer suburban services being mixed with long distance traffic on the fasts if you lose your path through any of several bottlenecks it is very hard to make up the time subsequently.

This area has NR Route Control and signallers at York, and GTR Service Control at Three Bridges. So, not co-located. I think in the days of Kings Cross PSB and FCC it may have been different?

 

[WeGoAgain]

Yes this is the premise I disagree with. Because in the train's timetable, all of this is already accounted for. It's not like it is doing anything extraordinary or out of course, only what has already been accounted for in the timetable. Therefore, a train which is running 5 minutes late should be able to maintain that lateness, and any extensions to that delay wouldn't be because it's doing what it was already timetabled to do..

You say:

but if this was the case, then surely every train which was running on-time would be delayed an additional 2 minutes at every stop? But that doesn't happen, because all of the duties (ie accelerating, doors, etc) you suggest would delay a train are accounted for in the timetable.

Here's an example : https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C18592/2026-05-28/detailed#allox_id=0
This train left its' origin 8L and maintains that late running even though it performs all the stops it was scheduled for.

However, if a fast train were making additional calls, I would expect that to add some significant delays because it hasn't been timetabled (with the acceleration/deceleration/doors/camera checks) to do this - but that isn't what we're discussing here.

Therefore, a train running 2 minutes late, and pathed behind a stopper (meaning it couldn't possibly make up that time anyway), shouldn't have it's stops pulled. Doing so is fruitless and it's what TOCs seem to be doing on a daily basis to no consequence and it needs to stop.

Agreed, all else being equal, it should maintain its delay throughout. But, if it is run fast, it cannot arrive at the 'destination' at the same time as if it had stopped at all of its booked stops, unless (as you've suggested) there is a pathing issue/conflict. Your initial statement of "it isn't uncommon to see these skip-stoppers maintain the same amount of mins late." did not specify that pathing/other trains were a factor in the train not making up time.
I'd imagine when the decision is made to run a service fast, the decision maker(s) isn't/aren't aware that the service in question is going to be held up further down the line making the skip stopping pointless.

On the line in the example you've linked, it's not so much of an issue, but on the Cambridge Branch line towards London, there can be a bottleneck at Hitchin and subsequent additional delays around Stevenage on the Fast and/or Woolmer Green on the slow.

 

[Magdalen Road]

Another abysmal start to the week, two days running of multiple cancellations on the Fen Line and stoppers from Kings Cross and St Pancras. It’s got to the point where I’m surprised to be even vaguely on time.

 

[Vexed]

This area has NR Route Control and signallers at York, and GTR Service Control at Three Bridges. So, not co-located. I think in the days of Kings Cross PSB and FCC it may have been different?

Unless they've moved out recently, GTR do have staff at York ROC.

 

[jon0844]

Unless they've moved out recently, GTR do have staff at York ROC.

Only limited daytime hours Monday to Saturday I believe.

 

[Failed Unit]

Another abysmal start to the week, two days running of multiple cancellations on the Fen Line and stoppers from Kings Cross and St Pancras. It’s got to the point where I’m surprised to be even vaguely on time.

They seem to insist on keeping units on booked diagrams in disruption. They are very late as well announcing changes to calling patterns.

This morning shows exactly why this thread exists.

 

[bramling]

They seem to insist on keeping units on booked diagrams in disruption. They are very late as well announcing changes to calling patterns.

This morning shows exactly why this thread exists.

This is partly because of the different stock types and the amount of outstabling, and also the compartmentalisation of driver route/traction knowledge.

If they start twiddling units around between diagrams it is likely to create problems further down the line, especially as GTR’s control isn’t strong enough to be able to keep on top of it.

FCC tended to do this more, but their crewing and rolling stock diagramming was simpler. GTR’s is necessarily more complex because of Thameslink, but they have made it a lot more complex than it should be notwithstanding this.

It would likely help if we could ever reach a situation where the GN 700/0 workings are removed or at least limited to a specific service group. December 18 was a lot simpler than what we have ended up with now - essentially 700s did everything except the Fen Line (387) and the peak extras (365/387), with some very slight crossover on Sundays only. Now everything is all over the place, though for those who dislike 700s this has its advantages, albeit with a reliability cost.

 

[Bikeman78]

If I understand your initial point correctly, you are saying a delayed train is run fast and doesn't get to the destination any earlier than if it had stopped at its booked stops. In which case, if a Train is two minutes late and is run fast and doesn't make up any time (keeps it current 2 minute delay), then each stop it would have made along the journey would add around x2 minutes per stop (slowing down/stopping, opening the doors, closing the doors and accelerating again). So, with x3 stops, it would have been 6 minutes later than had it run fast. So it'd be 8 minutes delayed in total instead of the initial 2.

And then how does that timing affect the next service if at all. I believe that's what is being looked at.

Often the reason that a train fails to make up any time is because it is following another train which stops more. In which case it might as well stop as booked to drop people off.

 

[Bikeman78]

It sounds flippant, however the best way for GN-side trains to run on time is for them not to be delayed in the first place. The whole Thameslink concept is a problem as it introduces so many additional opportunities for delays to occur. In 2017 you would still get delays if something went wrong at Sandy, Hitchin or Potters Bar, but you wouldn’t if it did at Haywards Heath, East Croydon or Farringdon, now you do.

Don't forget the reverse also applies. In 2017 a fatality at Stevenage would have no impact on passengers travelling from smaller stations between Horsham and London. Now it can mean no service for hours, or the rest of the day. When I stepped off the Hastings Diesel at Redhill a few weeks ago, Thameslink had given up. Their last departure in any direction was at 1745. Nothing else until close of service.

 

[WAB]

Unless they've moved out recently, GTR do have staff at York ROC.

But are they the ones who make service control decisions, or is that done by staff at TBROC?

 

[Vexed]

But are they the ones who make service control decisions, or is that done by staff at TBROC?

You would think that's a good idea as GN doesn't go anywhere near TBROC, but based on #916 and general staffing in control I'd hazard a guess the answer is no. If they are when it's staffed it looks to an outsider like there isn't much coordination and therefore not much point in them being there vs Three Bridges.

Maybe under GBR GN control might move to permanently at York.

 

[Bikeman78]

A person has been hit by a train north of Stevenage so the service to Horsham is severely disrupted. At 1115 the live departures for Littlehaven showed the 1129 and 1159 Peterborough on time. The first Southern train advertised was 1223 to Victoria. At 1135, both the 1129 and 1159 have vanished. Not even shown as cancelled. The 1223 is still the first Southern service shown to call additionally. How can the public be expected to plan when GTR doesn't know what it plans to do? It takes me 25 minutes to walk from Littlehaven to Horsham, so I need to know at least 30 minutes in advance if a Southern train will call additionally.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm a week or two late posting the last 4-weeks performance for evening peak Ely services, apologies. Now I've remembered here they are. And - ugh.



Things seemed to be improving a bit up to my last post with these figures in early May, but for the last four weeks things are worse than ever.

The 'main 5' services - those leaving London between 1700 and 1930 - are down to *27%*, which is even worse than January, just after the timetable change.

And Cambridge South is about to open, which will makes things even worse.


Watlington is now the second worst performing station in the country (!) according to ontimetrains, with Downham Market fifth worst and Littleport eighth. GN are the only operator to have three stations in the bottom 10.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'm a week or two late posting the last 4-weeks performance for evening peak Ely services, apologies. Now I've remembered here they are. And - ugh.

View attachment 205721

Things seemed to be improving a bit up to my last post with these figures in early May, but for the last four weeks things are worse than ever.

The 'main 5' services - those leaving London between 1700 and 1930 - are down to *27%*, which is even worse than January, just after the timetable change.

And Cambridge South is about to open, which will makes things even worse.


Watlington is now the second worst performing station in the country (!) according to ontimetrains, with Downham Market fifth worst and Littleport eighth. GN are the only operator to have three stations in the bottom 10.

View attachment 205722

1B89 has sat down on Up South of Potters Bar so wont be a good night as they were already recovering from earlier disruption.

 

[Segedunum]

1B89 has sat down on Up South of Potters Bar so wont be a good night as they were already recovering from earlier disruption.

Now on the move very slowly examining the line - initial suspicion was overhead line damage but fingers crossed just a blip with the Automatic (Pantograph) Dropping Device.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Now on the move very slowly examining the line - initial suspicion was overhead line damage but fingers crossed just a blip with the Automatic (Pantograph) Dropping Device.

80m to decide to examine the line! If the ADD has operated its in the rear of the train not in front

 

[MikeWM]

Has there even been any disruption to (fail to) recover from today? Nevertheless, there were quite a few cancellations this morning, including the 0647, 0747, 0846 and 0946 London services from Ely, and this afternoon the 1524, 1618 and 1718 Kings Cross to Kings Lynn services have all been cancelled. To add insult to injury they've kindly put 4 carriages rather than 12 on the 1748, which will obviously go really well after the 1718 cancellation. (24 carriages of people really don't fit well into 4, thanks GN).

 

[RailwayRookie]

A mix of unit faults and driver absence has caused todays problems. But having only the working 4 cars of the train is better than no train at all right?

 

[saismee]

A mix of unit faults and driver absence has caused todays problems. But having only the working 4 cars of the train is better than no train at all right?

With overcrowding, arguably no.