Could a situation exist where trains are cancelled if they run late?

[JonathanH]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-railway-updates.258172/page-26#post-7973668

Is it just me, or are they actually saying rejected because others are entitled to run late, rather than having to cancel if they miss their timetable slot

I am not sure what you suggest is a workable solution. A cancelled train in one direction means the return service is cancelled as well.

While poor performance and delays is not something which should be condoned, it is a fact of life that things happen that cause those problems, including passenger actions. If trains really were cancelled for missing their slot, it would make journey planning a whole lot more difficult.

I would be interested to know what you had in mind and how it would make a difference to the open access decisions. It might be noted that open access trains get delayed as well.

 

[Harpo]

Ask anyone who was planning to use Wrexham Central this autumn.

 

[Snow1964]

My point is, appears from ORR rejection letter, that the timetable gaps identified in the applications are seen as an excuse to allow late running, and keeping those slots free for occasional late running has been deemed more important than the new application.

There seems to be 2 things wrong with this idea, the monopoly network operator isn't obliged to do anything to add capacity, and the operator who might need the late running slots isn't expected to either improve so doesn't need the firebreak slot, or alternatively return another slot which it can use as a firebreak for its late running.

It seems the ORR is more keen to protect existing users even if they don't run on time, than open a token number of slots to competition.

At least the old rubbish of Open access abstracting 0.5% of national ticket revenue is no longer a serious factor

 

[Class73Electro]

I have been on a lot of London Vic - Portsmouth trains which have run late, and got cancelled at Barnham

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point is, appears from ORR rejection letter, that the timetable gaps identified in the applications are seen as an excuse to allow late running, and keeping those slots free for occasional late running has been deemed more important than the new application.

You speak as if Avanti is deliberately running late or even that it's mostly their fault. This is nonsense - most delays on the WCML are caused by a combination of it being too congested and infrastructure failings. If you use every single path with none spare for recovery you will have a very unreliable and unpunctual railway.

If anything it needs thinning out, not more rotting toiletless 221s cramming in to break down in awkward places.

 

[Snow1964]

You speak as if Avanti is deliberately running late or even that it's mostly their fault. This is nonsense - most delays on the WCML are caused by a combination of it being too congested and infrastructure failings. If you use every single path with none spare for recovery you will have a very unreliable and unpunctual railway.

If anything it needs thinning out,

That's my point, the ORR decision is not permitting a token number of extra trains, rather than saying those causing the congestion need to thin out their workings due to their inability to keep time.

Effectively ORR are saying Avanti not needing to hand back a slot so they can run late without blocking the last available slot, has been deemed better option than allowing a few trains to serve other destinations

 

[AlterEgo]

Effectively ORR are saying Avanti not needing to hand back a slot so they can run late without blocking the last available slot, has been deemed better option than allowing a few trains to serve other destinations

That's hardly controversial. They're prioritising the reliability of the existing timetable, which is vastly more sensible in terms of meeting the railway's goals than running a few odd slow trains to a town that has tried and failed direct services to London before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's my point, the ORR decision is not permitting a token number of extra trains, rather than saying those causing the congestion need to thin out their workings due to their inability to keep time.

Why should Avanti have to do that just so a parasitic OAO can come in and run short, highly polluting diesel trains under the wires when the delays are not their fault?

If Avanti has to lose money from thinning it should be so they benefit from the reliability improvements, not so another TOC can be crammed in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 09:07 ==

That's hardly controversial. They're prioritising the reliability of the existing timetable, which is vastly more sensible in terms of meeting the railway's goals than running a few odd slow trains to a town that has tried and failed direct services to London before.

This.