Counterproductive regulation

[stephen rp]

I took my wife for the 1452 from Runcorn to Birmingham. The 1425 is still in the station, as an OLE indicator is showing a fault near Weaver Junction. Guard happy with her travelling on the 1425, which is eventually sent to travel slow to inspect the line (with a risk that there is a problem and they're then stuck in the middle of nowhere). Nothing amiss but the train is nearly an hour late at Crewe, and terminates there. I'm on the phone working out her next best move to get to Brum, which is an Edinburgh-Brum-Euston running 20 late. (I've seen at Runcorn how busy the next Liv-Bhm is, and that it's terminating at Wolverhampton.) She gets the Virgin train, no problem with the ticket, but as they approach Wvh I reckon they might beat the 1650 local to Coventry (and she's going on to Lea Hall so that would mean an easy change at Sandwell). The local leaves just as the Virgin train pulls in, and that is then behind the local all the way to Coventry and ends up in the path of the next Virgin to Euston, and with other delays ends up over 30 late at Euston. And my wife gets to New St 62 late.

So - to avoid delaying the Wvh-Cov local by 5 minutes, which might have made up some of that but might have delayed the next Bhm-Eus Virgin but by less than it was delayed - passengers off the Liverpool train end up over 60 late, and all the Virgin passengers to Mkc and Euston are entitled to 30 min delay repay payments.

To avoid minor delay to one of their trains, LNWR/WMR end up giving full refunds because some of their passengers are on the one that's going to suffer 20 min delay rather than 5. And Virgin end up paying more compo than if we had what used to be common sense regulation of trains.

Q: are the penalties for delaying other trains really worth disrupting far more passenger journeys (even without delay payments to those passengers)?

 

[JN114]

The pathing of trains - particularly stoppers - through New Street is so tight, It’s fantasyland if you think it would make up any of the time it was delayed by. Coupled with tight turnarounds; you severely run the risk of transposing the delays of an incident in the Liverpool area to the suburban services around Birmingham.

The financial cost of delay payments (both Indsutry and Customer Compensation) rarely enters into the mindset of people making regulation decisions - Delay Repay doesn’t run the railway; minimising the impact of incidents does.

 

[BRblue]

The pathing of trains - particularly stoppers - through New Street is so tight, It’s fantasyland if you think it would make up any of the time it was delayed by. Coupled with tight turnarounds; you severely run the risk of transposing the delays of an incident in the Liverpool area to the suburban services around Birmingham.

The financial cost of delay payments (both Indsutry and Customer Compensation) rarely enters into the mindset of people making regulation decisions - Delay Repay doesn’t run the railway; minimising the impact of incidents does.

Hmmmm... I have to say that is not my experience. On the whole yes but nowhere near all the time.

 

[takno]

There is a fast train about every 10-15 minutes, taking at best 10 minutes less than the slow train to do the journey. You've got to fit the slow train down at some point, and holding it for 5 minutes could easily see it get in the way of the next fast. If the fasts are significantly disrupted there's even a chance the fast could end up standing outside New Street for long enough for the slow train to catch up with it and be delayed itself.

As regards dispatch at Wolverhampton, the slow train probably had the off before the Virgin train even got into the station area. If you decide to hold it at that point you have no idea how long the Virgin train is going to take to pull up to the platform, clear a train full of displaced and confused passengers, and then do dispatch. It could easily be 5 minutes, and then your local is running 7 minutes down when it wouldn't have significantly delayed the Virgin train anyway.

Obviously the decisions aren't made on the basis of delay-repay anyway. Even if they wanted to it would be impossible to calculate the average price of the delayed tickets on any given train, factor in the delay-repay regime in place on the originating operator, and figure out what the total knock-on delay for any given passenger would be, let alone calculate the proportion of passengers who will actually claim.

 

[ComUtoR]

as an OLE indicator is showing a fault near Weaver Junction.

Whats one of those ?

Cheers in advance.

 

[stephen rp]

The explanation being given was a problem with overhead line equipment, but there seemed to be no actual problem other than the fault indicator.

 

[stephen rp]

There is a fast train about every 10-15 minutes, taking at best 10 minutes less than the slow train to do the journey. You've got to fit the slow train down at some point, and holding it for 5 minutes could easily see it get in the way of the next fast. If the fasts are significantly disrupted there's even a chance the fast could end up standing outside New Street for long enough for the slow train to catch up with it and be delayed itself.

As regards dispatch at Wolverhampton, the slow train probably had the off before the Virgin train even got into the station area. If you decide to hold it at that point you have no idea how long the Virgin train is going to take to pull up to the platform, clear a train full of displaced and confused passengers, and then do dispatch. It could easily be 5 minutes, and then your local is running 7 minutes down when it wouldn't have significantly delayed the Virgin train anyway.

Obviously the decisions aren't made on the basis of delay-repay anyway. Even if they wanted to it would be impossible to calculate the average price of the delayed tickets on any given train, factor in the delay-repay regime in place on the originating operator, and figure out what the total knock-on delay for any given passenger would be, let alone calculate the proportion of passengers who will actually claim.

It obviously did significantly delay the Virgin train. The Edinburgh left WVH 3 late (just behind the local). I've just checked, and they eventually let the Edinburgh pass the local at BHI - so the local was still 12 late at Coventry (but with a leisurely turn round); if it had followed from WVH the Virgin would have been probably only 5 late leaving BHM (instead of 20 late at Coventry and delaying other trains). The local running 5 late would not have delayed the next train (LNW from Liverpool which was already 20 late). Assuming the local ran 5 late all the way to Coventry, it would have delayed the next BHM-EUS Virgin by 5 minutes - but that was actually 13 late because it was behind the local between BHI and Coventry.

So letting the local out at WVH eventually made it 12 late, two Virgin trains were delayed by 15 and 8 minutes, whereas letting the Virgin out at WVH (admittedly without knowing how long it would be in the platform) would have just meant 5 mins delay to the local. Oh, and by the time it got to Coventry the following BHM-EUS LNW was delayed 10 minutes and the next BHM-EUS Virgin by 3 minutes.

My query was whether compensation for delays (within the attribution system or in delay repay payments) leads to counterproductive regulation of trains. Case proved, I think.

 

[takno]

It obviously did significantly delay the Virgin train. The Edinburgh left WVH 3 late (just behind the local). I've just checked, and they eventually let the Edinburgh pass the local at BHI - so the local was still 12 late at Coventry (but with a leisurely turn round); if it had followed from WVH the Virgin would have been probably only 5 late leaving BHM (instead of 20 late at Coventry and delaying other trains). The local running 5 late would not have delayed the next train (LNW from Liverpool which was already 20 late). Assuming the local ran 5 late all the way to Coventry, it would have delayed the next BHM-EUS Virgin by 5 minutes - but that was actually 13 late because it was behind the local between BHI and Coventry.

So letting the local out at WVH eventually made it 12 late, two Virgin trains were delayed by 15 and 8 minutes, whereas letting the Virgin out at WVH (admittedly without knowing how long it would be in the platform) would have just meant 5 mins delay to the local. Oh, and by the time it got to Coventry the following BHM-EUS LNW was delayed 10 minutes and the next BHM-EUS Virgin by 3 minutes.

My query was whether compensation for delays (within the attribution system or in delay repay payments) leads to counterproductive regulation of trains. Case proved, I think.

What actually happened 10 miles down the line, and what the signaller or signalling system knew at the time the route was set have very little to do with each other. It's conceivable that better regulation could have been achieved, and it's also entirely possible that if they'd been let go in the opposite order the outcome could have been as bad or worse. We simply don't have enough information about the alternative scenario to guess.

I'm not sure what case you think has or hasn't been proved, but honestly it doesn't particularly matter - it's a difficult route, all regulation options will annoy someone, and there will always be someone on this forum who thinks they could have done the job better.

 

[DarloRich]

The explanation being given was a problem with overhead line equipment, but there seemed to be no actual problem other than the fault indicator.

What fault indicator? I am confused

 

[185]

I suspect a fault showed up in the controlling Crewe ECO panel suggesting it had gone to earth or tripped out. Requires all-trains-stop to prevent further damage to the overheads until a visual check gives the all clear.

 

[stephen rp]

What actually happened 10 miles down the line, and what the signaller or signalling system knew at the time the route was set have very little to do with each other. It's conceivable that better regulation could have been achieved, and it's also entirely possible that if they'd been let go in the opposite order the outcome could have been as bad or worse. We simply don't have enough information about the alternative scenario to guess.

I'm not sure what case you think has or hasn't been proved, but honestly it doesn't particularly matter - it's a difficult route, all regulation options will annoy someone, and there will always be someone on this forum who thinks they could have done the job better.

Sorry, but it's almost inevitable that if a train calling all stations is put just in front of one with limited stops, total delays are likely to be longer. It's not that complicated a route - no trains were affected other than ones in one direction between Wolverhampton and Coventry. I could see from 80 miles away on my phone what looked the more obvious solution; obviously I may have been unaware of other considerations, and I didn't intend to get hung up on this particular incident but it's still the principle that baffles me - the principle that railways are run on the basis of compensation for delays, rather than minimising delays.

(My local line is Oxford Road to Lime Street; if the fast train to Liverpool is 5 late, no-one would dream of letting the local out first, even though delaying the local almost inevitably delays the next fast train half an hour later.)

 

[Deafdoggie]

It obviously did significantly delay the Virgin train. The Edinburgh left WVH 3 late (just behind the local). I've just checked, and they eventually let the Edinburgh pass the local at BHI - so the local was still 12 late at Coventry (but with a leisurely turn round); if it had followed from WVH the Virgin would have been probably only 5 late leaving BHM (instead of 20 late at Coventry and delaying other trains). The local running 5 late would not have delayed the next train (LNW from Liverpool which was already 20 late). Assuming the local ran 5 late all the way to Coventry, it would have delayed the next BHM-EUS Virgin by 5 minutes - but that was actually 13 late because it was behind the local between BHI and Coventry.

So letting the local out at WVH eventually made it 12 late, two Virgin trains were delayed by 15 and 8 minutes, whereas letting the Virgin out at WVH (admittedly without knowing how long it would be in the platform) would have just meant 5 mins delay to the local. Oh, and by the time it got to Coventry the following BHM-EUS LNW was delayed 10 minutes and the next BHM-EUS Virgin by 3 minutes.

My query was whether compensation for delays (within the attribution system or in delay repay payments) leads to counterproductive regulation of trains. Case proved, I think.

There are just so many trains on the line between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, it is inevitable that the trains, in whatever order they go, would delay one another once one is late.

Generally-but not always-Birmingham like the trains presented in the correct order, so that they can regulate them better there.

 

[bb21]

the principle that railways are run on the basis of compensation for delays, rather than minimising delays.

Who told you that?

If that were the case most of our lot of controllers would lose their jobs as none of them had a clue (or more accurately, misinformed notions) about financial arrangements.

 

[yorkie]

How about this for poor regulation..

03/11/2018

The delayed 2147 Manchester Piccadilly (MAN) to Hull (terminating short at Leeds) departed MAN at 2220; this train called at many stations en route to Leeds (including making additional stops between Manchester and Huddersfield due to the cancellation of the 2117)

The 2222 departure for York departed on time; this train calls at none of the intermediate stations between Manchester (Victoria) and Huddersfield.

At Stalybridge, there was the option for the York train to overtake. Had this happened, the York train would have remained on time throughout the journey.

However, the Hull service was allowed to depart at 22:38, just three minutes before the York train was due to pass non-stop, rather than holding it for around 6 minutes for the York train to get ahead.

So, instead of remaining on time, the York service arrived into Huddersfield 25 minutes late, as it was stuck behind the stopper, at 23:24. A further couple of minutes was lost due to extended dwell times caused by overcrowding, though "recovery time" into York resulted in the delay being 22 minutes when the train terminated. But that train could easily have been on time.

Bizarrely, having chosen not to hold the stopper at any earlier point, the decision was made to hold it at Huddersfield, where the train was held for 10 minutes. This resulted in exacerbating the overcrowding on the fast train as passengers switched trains.

The end result was a big delay to the York service, which was 27 minutes late on departure from Leeds, as well as the inevitable delay to the Hull service, which terminated short at Leeds 68 minutes late.

Once the stopper had been given priority as far as Huddersfield, it may as well have stayed ahead of the fast train, as between Huddersfield and Leeds there was only one additional call on the stopper, at Batley. The dwell times at Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Leeds on the fast train were also extended further due to the increased overcrowding, which surely obviated any benefit to being let out of Huddersfield first.

If they were going to hold the stopper, it should have been done at Manchester or Stalybridge, not at Huddersfield.

Who makes these decisions? Who are they accountable to?

 

[Sunset route]

I like the way you assume it was the signallers decision, when control should be looking at the bigger picture and taking the lead on such issues. Otherwise the regulation as you suggested will go against the signaller for the delay.

 

[Spartacus]

Yorkie, there does seem to be a certain reluctance to hold the stoppers for an express for a stopper on the manchester side, be it at Stalybridge or at Diggle, I've no idea why, but I do know that it's a subject that had been brought up before. Maybe it's because it's a class 1 vs a class 1 (despite their obviously very different stopping patterns) it's the only possibly reasoning I can come up with. Depending on the situation sometimes an express can be forced into following the stopper all the way to Leeds, usually when they have stops at other local shacks too!

 

[Mintona]

It is probably the computer that makes these decisions.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is probably the computer that makes these decisions.

The next round of digital signalling will have TMS (train management system) which is supposed to work out regulation options automatically and offer them to the signallers.
Apparently being tested in a few ROC locations now (eg on the GWML).
It looks like the TP route will get some of that in the upcoming upgrade.
It remains to be seen if is capable of leading to more efficient regulation.
Sometimes today you see very clever regulation (eg looping TP past a Northern stopper at Huyton using the new layout), but often not.
Then there's the whole thing of not having bi-di signalling, or not using it when it's there.

 

[yorkie]

And how about this one..

Grand Central's 1A61 0821 Sunderland - King's Cross allowed to arrive into Northallerton 11 minutes early at 0930 (booked arr 0941 dep 0943), despite LNER's 1E05 0730 Edinburgh - King's Cross departing Darlington a minute early, due to pass Northallerton 0938.

This then delayed TPE's 9M07 Newcastle to Liverpool (which had to wait behind the LNER), which meant the Grand Central had to wait time at Thirsk for that train to get ahead of it. Then of course more delays occur at York.

Now all three trains are delayed and have lost their paths.

 

[Silverdale]

RTT has 1A81 just 1 minute early at Northallerton East Junction.

Less than 2 minutes later and it's 10 early at Northallerton Station. Was it accelerated to warp factor 3, or is it the 8 min of allowances which mean the early arrival (and consequent effects) is effectively built into the WTT?

 

[LAX54]

Ahhh the joys of a thing called 'hindsight' if we all had this installed, life would be somuch easier, Oh and the time to sit down with nothing else going on and work out if we do this there, and that there, this may work, and whilst tappiing away at a PC working all that out, everything else stops

 

[Starmill]

RTT has 1A81 just 1 minute early at Northallerton East Junction.

Less than 2 minutes later and it's 10 early at Northallerton Station. Was it accelerated to warp factor 3, or is it the 8 min of allowances which mean the early arrival (and consequent effects) is effectively built into the WTT?

7 minutes of pathing allowance were provided. Presumably, this was for the train to wait at the junction for other services to get clear before proceeding into the platform at Northallerton.

Why this didn't happen, I have no idea.

 

[LAX54]

The next round of digital signalling will have TMS (train management system) which is supposed to work out regulation options automatically and offer them to the signallers.
Apparently being tested in a few ROC locations now (eg on the GWML).
It looks like the TP route will get some of that in the upcoming upgrade.
It remains to be seen if is capable of leading to more efficient regulation.
Sometimes today you see very clever regulation (eg looping TP past a Northern stopper at Huyton using the new layout), but often not.
Then there's the whole thing of not having bi-di signalling, or not using it when it's there.

as long as there is no crew going sick en route, no ESR's suddenly put on, no passenger illnesses, no VSTPSs that are not in TRUST etc etc, it will work fine they say its like 'train graph', and that was / is as much use as a chocolate fireguard sometimes !

 

[LAX54]

I like the way you assume it was the signallers decision, when control should be looking at the bigger picture and taking the lead on such issues. Otherwise the regulation as you suggested will go against the signaller for the delay.

It would also help if a Class 1 WAS a Class 1, on not in reality a '2' and vice versa, headcodes used by TOCs seem to mean very little these days

 

[Westcoast-ting]

The stour valley lines are one horrendous peice of railway.

Too many trains ran on a schedule so tight that the slightest delay is difficult to recover from.

So many times I’ve sat a proof house on time to then miss valid connections at new street due to late runners / ecs in wrong places.

It’s a testament to signallers / route controllers that it actually runs at any point !

 

[Eccles1983]

Classes of trains don't relate to priority.

So class 1 doesn't mean that it should automatically be given routes ahead of other classes of trains.

Schoolboy error.

 

[Sunset route]

It would also help if a Class 1 WAS a Class 1, on not in reality a '2' and vice versa, headcodes used by TOCs seem to mean very little these days

There a huge swaths of the network inclunding quite a few areas that I work, that even if you priorities via classification it still wouldn’t work as you funnel all the trains into London from the dense South East commuter land. You can’t hold on to a slower class 2 indefinitely at a Junction to join the flow as that will delay the all the trains behind it. Some Junctions are merge in turn regardless of timetable and class of train especially with slight late running otherwise gridlock will ensue.

 

[LAX54]

There a huge swaths of the network inclunding quite a few areas that I work, that even if you priorities via classification it still wouldn’t work as you funnel all the trains into London from the dense South East commuter land. You can’t hold on to a slower class 2 indefinitely at a Junction to join the flow as that will delay the all the trains behind it. Some Junctions are merge in turn regardless of timetable and class of train especially with slight late running otherwise gridlock will ensue.

Agree but on the HC front, we have Class 1 trains that are all stations except for 1, and class 2's that are fast, but stop at that station !

 

[Mugby]

Today I got the 1404 EMT service from Derby to London (as far as Leicester) which departed on time.
At Trent South we were stopped because the 1345 from Nottingham to London had departed on time but somehow managed to lose 14 minutes by East Mids Parkway. We followed it to Leicester, chasing yellows, being stopped again at Loughborough and approaching Leicester Station.
At Leicester, the ex-Derby train was delayed further because a number of people thought it was the 1439 stopping service to London, they boarded and had to get off again when it was announced that it was non-stop to London. It left Leicester 15 minutes late and never recovered it's lost time.

The point is, the late running service from Nottingham could have been held at Trent to let the 1404 ex-Derby go first because there were no connections to speak of. However, they would have arrived at St. Pancras in the wrong order and probably cocked up the returning departures from there. The ex-Nottingham service just got later and later (according to RTT) and was almost 30 down by STP.

Should they have been regulated or was it a case of booked order rules!

 

[45107]

I like the way you assume it was the signallers decision, when control should be looking at the bigger picture and taking the lead on such issues. Otherwise the regulation as you suggested will go against the signaller for the delay.

Or the Controller was dealing with another train and missed this one ? It does happen.
The signaller can see what is happening on their patch and should either use a bit of common sense or ask instead of waiting to be told.
Regulation of trains shouldn’t be a Control to Signaller only process. The signaller should think/ask occasionally