Curious priorities

[Shrop]

Today's (meaning 21st Jan) 67-hauled 15.10 from Crewe to Cardiff was in the platform less than 10 minutes late, but the 15.19 all stations stopper to Shrewsbury was allowed out in front of it.
By Shrewsbury it was 40 minutes late because of this, which was then further compounded by additional stops, as the preceding 197 Holyhead-Cardiff was permitted to run Shrewsbury-Cardiff non stop to make up for its own lateness.
So for anyone quick to pour scorn on to Class 67 performances and reliability, this train might have reached Cardiff pretty well on time after being 10 late in Crewe, if other trains hadn't been prioritised over it.
Instead some might pour scorn on "yet another" late arrival of a Class 67 hauled set. It's certainly symptomatic of the type of "constructive dismissal" tactic that rail companies are prone to using.
But why would the stopper be permitted to leave Crewe in front, causing a 30 minute additional delay to the fast train, when holding the stopper would have only delayed it by less than 10 minutes, most of which is recoverable since it was formed by a high capability 197 set?

 

[30907]

By running non-stop the Holyhead was able to take up its booked return working as part of the 5-car 1823 (attachment made in Canton). That might not have been possible* had it been delayed by the 1430 MAN, which has a long layover at Cardiff.
The Crewe Shrewsbury shuttles have minimal turnround times so another couple of trains would have been delayed.
I presume the additional stops at Ch Stretton and Craven Arms were to cope with a local traffic peak (though with the HoW having been held it seems unnecessary).

I can see why the regulating decisions were made.

*is General signalled for in-platform attachments; was there a crew available to ferry the ECS?

 

[WTT Gremlin]

I agree regarding seeing the regulating decisions. There is also the matter of the performance target of T-3 at all calls, why delay a train which could run to time for a train which is already late and compound the performance impact.

Added that this is involving Crewe junctions and AB signalling (at least planning headways) on the route to Shrewsbury it would cause more than a 10 minute delay to the stopper.

 

[Shrop]

The Crewe Shrewsbury shuttles have minimal turnround times so another couple of trains would have been delayed.

Yes, but as I said above the shuttle was a 197 working a 156 schedule, so there would have been plenty of scope to catch up time after a fairly minimal delay (less than 10 minutes).
It certainly seems a very small price to pay compared to adding 30 minutes to the original 10 minute delay to the Class 67 set.

 

[Falcon1200]

It would be interesting to know whether there is an agreed Regulating instruction for such a scenario?

 

[Topological]

Most of us who "pour scorn" on the Mk4 performance do so because they do not run at all. It is very harsh to single a class out for regulation delays.

I should also add that I cannot recall being regulated behind the stopper on Crewe-Shrewsbury, even when up to 15 minutes late. It is actually rare to lose much time on the Manchester - Crewe section. More often than not a wait is needed outside Crewe owing to being too early.

 

[Lewisham2221]

More often than not, the stopper would be held to allow the delayed Cardiff service to go in front, so there was possibly a specific reason for sending the stopper first in this instance.

 

[Shrop]

More often than not, the stopper would be held to allow the delayed Cardiff service to go in front, so there was possibly a specific reason for sending the stopper first in this instance.

There might have been a specific reason, but it would be interesting to know what it really was. It's tedious always hearing the dismissive rubbish we often get from those who claim to know best, but who frequently don't.
"Customer service" type responses often stand very little scrutiny.

 

[Harpo]

There might have been a specific reason, but it would be interesting to know what it really was.

What we see in a regulating decision never matches the full extent of information and instruction that led to the decision.

If the layers of hindsight are stripped away by limiting the debate to the same amount of time that the signaller had to make the decision, things don’t always look so puzzling.

 

[Shrop]

What we see in a regulating decision never matches the full extent of information and instruction that led to the decision.

If the layers of hindsight are stripped away by limiting the debate to the same amount of time that the signaller had to make the decision, things don’t always look so puzzling.

Yes, hindsight is always easy, but when travelling on the railways, I see things very often, which are asking for trouble right there at the time, and then bad decisions are made.
Obviously a great many good decisions are made too, but the bad decisions are just too many when they're often obvious BEFORE things get worse. There's just too much heads in sand from management, an accusation I would love to defend on the ground over a few real journeys!

 

[Falcon1200]

There might have been a specific reason, but it would be interesting to know what it really was.

There could be several reasons;

A regulating instruction (agreed between NR and TOC) that if the express is x minutes late, the stopper leaves on time;
A request from the TOC to keep the stopper on time;
A decision from NR to run the stopper on time to minimise overall delay;
The possibility that the express might for some reason incur further delay at Crewe and the stopper could not be held indefinitely;
And last, but by no means least, a simple oversight!

 

[Topological]

It is probably worth remembering that the express and the stopper are both TfW.

As @30907 rightly notes the Mk4 sets get long layovers in Cardiff and can therefore handle some delays better than diagrams with tight turn arounds.

I also dispute the notion of express on what is essentially a regional railway. For an "Intercity" journey to Manchester, connection at Bristol Parkway is required.

 

[robspaceman]

Express in this context from the OP simply means a train that doesn’t stop at all stations, surely. The 67/mk4 runs fast from Crewe-Salop. Therefore for the purposes of this discussion it’s an express train.

 

[amahy]

I experienced a very similar situation to this once at Crewe a few years ago, where the Crewe to Shrewsbury stopper WAS held by over 10 minutes to allow a late running Manchester to South Wales train to go in front. Yet, looking at RTT, in this situation, the stopper would've only need to have been held for 7-8 minutes for the express to go ahead (the express departed Crewe at 15:23, 13 minutes late, so the stopper would've departed at around 15:26 if held). Presuming the stopper encountered no further delays, it would've then been less than 5 minutes late on its return trip from Shrewsbury to Crewe (the stopper has a 4 minute turnaround time at Shrewsbury, and often arrives into Shrewsbury early).

I can only presume negligence was the cause, as I have experienced other similar cases near Crewe (such as a 30 minute late Glasgow to Euston via Birmingham class 9 being held behind an on time Liverpool to Euston class 1 at Weaver Junction - both Avanti).

 

[43096]

I also dispute the notion of express on what is essentially a regional railway. For an "Intercity" journey to Manchester, connection at Bristol Parkway is required.

The option of changing at Bristol Parkway is even less "Intercity" in quality than TfW's Mark 4 sets. You are subjected to two of the worst long-distance train designs we've ever had going via Bristol.

 

[30907]

Presuming the stopper encountered no further delays, it would've then been less than 5 minutes late on its return trip from Shrewsbury to Crewe (the stopper has a 4 minute turnaround time at Shrewsbury, and often arrives into Shrewsbury early).

You are forgetting the long block sections (which caused a significant delay to the express).

 

[Topological]

Express in this context from the OP simply means a train that doesn’t stop at all stations, surely. The 67/mk4 runs fast from Crewe-Salop. Therefore for the purposes of this discussion it’s an express train.

Whilst this particular train does not have stops, many Manchester to South Wales do, including services operated by the 67/Mk4 combinations.

As a regular user of the line, it is a regional service that primarily serves intermediate journeys.

Another thought which is not yet mentioned. Does the Crewe to Shrewsbury perform a school function? If so it would be entirely logical to send that first rather than have lots of kids on the platform when a non-stop train came through.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes, hindsight is always easy, but when travelling on the railways, I see things very often, which are asking for trouble right there at the time, and then bad decisions are made.
Obviously a great many good decisions are made too, but the bad decisions are just too many when they're often obvious BEFORE things get worse. There's just too much heads in sand from management, an accusation I would love to defend on the ground over a few real journeys!

But how do you know they are "bad decisions"?
That decision may apply to you personally, but you aren't aware of the bigger picture, which the signaller/controller is aware of and may be trying to mitigate for the benefit of more than just one passenger.

 

[amahy]

You are forgetting the long block sections (which caused a significant delay to the express).

Even with the long block sections, this still doesn't explain why on a different occasion, the stopper was held for longer than would have been required on this occasion, but this time it wasn't, and it previously was.

 

[Harpo]

Another thought which is not yet mentioned. Does the Crewe to Shrewsbury perform a school function? If so it would be entirely logical to send that first rather than have lots of kids on the platform when a non-stop train came through.

That’s not something that would affect regulation or train running. If there was a report of dangerous overcrowding on a platform the likely action is all trains being cautioned or stopped until it was resolved.

 

[Topological]

That’s not something that would affect regulation or train running. If there was a report of dangerous overcrowding on a platform the likely action is all trains being cautioned or stopped until it was resolved.

Thank you.

I just realised that was something which had not been mentioned, but would have been possible given the time. However, I can now see that this sort of common sense is not applied in regulatory decisions. Explains why no one else mentioned it.

 

[Shrop]

Another thought which is not yet mentioned. Does the Crewe to Shrewsbury perform a school function? If so it would be entirely logical to send that first rather than have lots of kids on the platform when a non-stop train came through.

I have never seen very many kids on the platforms anywhere along this route, certainly nowhere near enough to cause any concern about crowding.

Yet, looking at RTT, in this situation, the stopper would've only need to have been held for 7-8 minutes for the express to go ahead (the express departed Crewe at 15:23, 13 minutes late, so the stopper would've departed at around 15:26 if held). Presuming the stopper encountered no further delays, it would've then been less than 5 minutes late on its return trip from Shrewsbury to Crewe (the stopper has a 4 minute turnaround time at Shrewsbury, and often arrives into Shrewsbury early).

Don't forget, the express departed at 15.23 with the stopper having been pathed in front. If the stopper had been held, the express may have been able to leave a couple of minutes earlier.
Also, as I said above, the stopper was a 197 on a 156 schedule. If the express had gone in front, then by Nantwich the stopper would have had the required headway, and thereafter been able to run to its full potential. So in other words a 197 on a 156 schedule would have been pretty well on time by Shrewsbury, even if it had followed the express out of Crewe. If I could have found this obvious whilst standing on Crewe station at 15.15 as a layman, surely the signalman would have worked it out?

I can only presume negligence was the cause, as I have experienced other similar cases near Crewe (such as a 30 minute late Glasgow to Euston via Birmingham class 9 being held behind an on time Liverpool to Euston class 1 at Weaver Junction - both Avanti).

Sadly, negligence appears to be the most likely explanation, I have seen so many examples over the years. The most common, but lofty response from those in the industry is that there were circumstances that a layman wouldn't have known about. And then they refuse to engage further even when genuinely helpful suggestions are proffered.

 

[Topological]

You do see a lot of school children using 1W12 in the morning, so it would make sense there was a balance to that. In the case of 1W12 it is the Cardiff to Manchester which stops, rather than a separate Shrewsbury to Crewe.

 

[Shrop]

You do see a lot of school children using 1W12 in the morning, so it would make sense there was a balance to that. In the case of 1W12 it is the Cardiff to Manchester which stops, rather than a separate Shrewsbury to Crewe.

Two things here. Firstly, do you how many, and at which station? And secondly, isn't the "balance" that they are dispersing as soon as the train arrives, rather than standing around on the platform?

 

[Topological]

Two things here. Firstly, do you how many, and at which station? And secondly, isn't the "balance" that they are dispersing as soon as the train arrives, rather than standing around on the platform?

Firstly, that is the morning. It is a train going from Shrewsbury around the time the schools start. Naturally the children get off the train and head to the school.

Secondly, no I do not count them.

My point is that the regulated train was going towards Shrewsbury in the afternoon around the time schools finish. Hence the balance would see the children come from school and wait on the platform for the train to arrive.

It has already been explained that no thought would be given to the likelihood of schoolchildren waiting for the stopper on the platforms.

 

[Llanigraham]

I've certainly caught a morning train at Nantwich, in both directions, where there have been plenty of school and college students getting on, and in the reverse in the late afternoon.

 

[Falcon1200]

Sadly, negligence appears to be the most likely explanation, I have seen so many examples over the years.

It might be but again, might not; None of us posting here appears to have inside knowledge of what, if anything, was agreed and arranged, and why. But a regulating decision which seems to be due to negligence can in fact have been done for perfectly valid reasons. I have been responsible for some such in the past.

The most common, but lofty response from those in the industry is that there were circumstances that a layman wouldn't have known about.

Not lofty responses at all but attempting to explain why things which do not seem logical or obvious are done.

 

[Harpo]

The most common, but lofty response from those in the industry is that there were circumstances that a layman wouldn't have known about.

Nor an operator! My decades in ops tell me that I don’t have the full facts here and that unless I had cause to investigate it, never would.

 

[amahy]

It might be but again, might not; None of us posting here appears to have inside knowledge of what, if anything, was agreed and arranged, and why. But a regulating decision which seems to be due to negligence can in fact have been done for perfectly valid reasons. I have been responsible for some such in the past.

But what mystery regulating decision could there be? That the guard on the Shrewsbury service didn’t want to wait an extra 5 minutes to get home?

 

[Shrop]

Not lofty responses at all but attempting to explain why things which do not seem logical or obvious are done.

I have examples of asking why a train wasn't held for a late incoming train. The responses have included comment that there is single track ahead and it doesn't do to block that as the delays then magnify as time goes on.
But that response simply bears no scrutiny. I asked about such a situation at Shrewsbury, when a Holyhead train departed at around 9.00pm after a ex Birmingham train arrived before it left, but passengers weren't allowed enough time to walk the 30 yards between the trains.
The response included that the Holyhead train would have blocked a single line section around the Menai Bridge, which would have then delayed London-bound trains.
So how many London-bound trains are there at the Menai Bridge at almost midnight? And in any event this presumes that in over 2 hours, the train would have failed to recover the 2 minutes it would have had to wait at Shrewsbury.
These are the types of responses that I call "lofty", because they don't stand scrutiny, and they refuse to engage with further questions. They also assume their customers to be stupid.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

But how do you know they are "bad decisions"?
That decision may apply to you personally, but you aren't aware of the bigger picture, which the signaller/controller is aware of and may be trying to mitigate for the benefit of more than just one passenger.

The fact that I might not be aware of the bigger picture is exactly why I ask questions - I'm genuinely curious. Moreover, I would like to offer constructive comment.
I just don't enjoy the presumption that customers can be fobbed off with rubbish.