Change to train timetable "to avoid a non-compliance"

[JustPassingBy]

From Chiltern's changes to timetable in December:

1R63 2032 Marylebone-Birmingham Moor Street no longer calls at Lapworth (this is to avoid a non-compliance we have with this train in the current timetable).

Ref:

Our timetable is changing | Chiltern Railways

Our new timetable starts on Sunday 10 December 2023The Chiltern Railways December 2023 timetable which starts on Sunday 10th December 2023 has very few changes, when compared to the previous timetable.A small number of services have had their times changed by a few minutes with the aim of...

www.chilternrailways.co.uk

Any idea what on earth this is on about by "non-compliance"?

Was this stop at Lapworth in some way not allowed?

 

[Watershed]

I suspect they may be referring to the train not complying with some aspect of the Timetable Planning Rules, for example to do with headways, junction margins or dwell times. It may be that the train persistently loses time at the moment and a review of the underlying cause has identified the schedule's non-compliance with the TPR.

It may be something operational instead, for example if there is a longer formation now planned to form this service than the platform, and it's seen as undesirable to lock the overhanging coaches out of use (I understand Chiltern are quite limited in what forms of Selective Door Operation are available on their class 168 fleet).

 

[JustPassingBy]

Thanks for the suggested potential causes.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Bit embarrassing for Network Rail if they’d previously offered the train with a stop resulting in a non-compliance, and the only way to resolve is to lose the stop.

 

[Watershed]

Bit embarrassing for Network Rail if they’d previously offered the train with a stop resulting in a non-compliance, and the only way to resolve is to lose the stop.

Certainly wouldn't be the first time this kind of stuff had happened. The turnover of planners at MK is huge and the quality of some of the stuff that gets offered is suspect to say the least.

 

[The Planner]

Bit embarrassing for Network Rail if they’d previously offered the train with a stop resulting in a non-compliance, and the only way to resolve is to lose the stop.

Been happening for decades, normally gets ignored until it starts flagging incidents. Clearly this wasn't getting hid under a ZZ delay code. Wait until you see what gets offered STP!

 

[Starmill]

I suspect they may be referring to the train not complying with some aspect of the Timetable Planning Rules, for example to do with headways, junction margins or dwell times. It may be that the train persistently loses time at the moment and a review of the underlying cause has identified the schedule's non-compliance with the TPR.

It may be something operational instead, for example if there is a longer formation now planned to form this service than the platform, and it's seen as undesirable to lock the overhanging coaches out of use (I understand Chiltern are quite limited in what forms of Selective Door Operation are available on their class 168 fleet).

Chiltern used to be so good at spelling things like this out, it's a shame to see them resorting to cryptic clues and jargon.

 

[Watershed]

Chiltern used to be so good at spelling things like this out, it's a shame to see them resorting to cryptic clues and jargon.

It almost reads more like an internal briefing note that has been published by accident - but 'non-compliance' wouldn't even mean anything to most people working for Chiltern, outside their Planning team.

 

[Starmill]

Bit embarrassing for Network Rail if they’d previously offered the train with a stop resulting in a non-compliance, and the only way to resolve is to lose the stop.

This can also happen where Network Rail haven't actually done anything wrong. For example, I'd say planning a double 150 that doesn't fit on the platform to be worked with butterfly controls at 30 second dwell times, especially at multiple stations in a row, is so obviously non-complaint. But Network Rail aren't to know that's the policy. Station work at Bromley Cross for example is certainly not achievable in 30 seconds using the butterfly controls.

 

[Trainguy34]

This can also happen where Network Rail haven't actually done anything wrong. For example, I'd say planning a double 150 that doesn't fit on the platform to be worked with butterfly controls at 30 second dwell times, especially at multiple stations in a row, is so obviously non-complaint. But Network Rail aren't to know that's the policy. Station work at Bromley Cross for example is certainly not achievable in 30 seconds using the butterfly controls.

Please can you explain what butterfly controls are?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Please can you explain what butterfly controls are?

Manual door release controls on the outside of the train, requiring the guard to walk to each door and operate manually.

This can also happen where Network Rail haven't actually done anything wrong. For example, I'd say planning a double 150 that doesn't fit on the platform to be worked with butterfly controls at 30 second dwell times, especially at multiple stations in a row, is so obviously non-complaint. But Network Rail aren't to know that's the policy. Station work at Bromley Cross for example is certainly not achievable in 30 seconds using the butterfly controls.

If the TPRs permit this then it is a problem with the rules - although there is surely the option of local door release as a method of working? 30 second dwells are suspect at all but the quietest stations anyway.

 

[Tramfan]

It almost reads more like an internal briefing note that has been published by accident - but 'non-compliance' wouldn't even mean anything to most people working for Chiltern, outside their Planning team.

That's exactly what I thought too tbh, the references to specific headcodes which aren't there on the weekday one add to the likelihood of this I think

 

[Starmill]

If the TPRs permit this then it is a problem with the rules - although there is surely the option of local door release as a method of working? 30 second dwells are suspect at all but the quietest stations anyway.

I don't think they do permit it. Northern just changed the method of work in the middle of the timetable. Can't be worked local door due to no corridor between units. In the case of Bromley Cross the train does fit, it's just part of the platform is low. Previously the conductor just moved people away from that door and verbally asked everyone not to use it, but released it anyway.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Please can you explain what butterfly controls are?

They're often labelled as emergency door releases with a label pointing towards the track level. I see them used a lot by guards in Wigan Wallgate meeting the 158s from the siding.

Picture of the front/side of a Class 158 with the exterior emergency door handle circled with an arrow pointing to it