failure to reach 125mph confusion yesterday....

[RichW1]

What a strange thread. As long as the train got to it's destination on time I really can't see the problem here. The fact is many Sunday services are given some slack as engineering works often mean slow lines have to be utilised or two tracks instead of four.
Even normal running you often have areas where as an experienced driver you know it's pointless running at line speed as you will catch up a preceding stopping service. One that we do regularly off the top of my head are services from Reading via Solihull. During the daytime you will catch up a stopper around Solihull and follow it to Tyseley. What is the point of running line speed only to then have to run on yellows at slow speed increasing the risk of a SPAD just so a punter can say well it was OK as we went 100MPH where possible.
Of course the OP is obviously unaware of a mechanical problem that could have affected the trains top speed. A voyager with one engine out (especially a five car) would struggle to get up to 125 between Stafford and Wolverhampton on the up even though the line speed is 125
With regards the the subject of padding timetables. I have never understood why people think this is such a bad thing. At least if your timetable has a bit of slack in it the odd few minutes delay can be clawed back if required. Without any recovery time any slight delay for any reason and the train would stay late. Recovery time just means the timetable is a lot more robust and can cope with events easier.
Recovery time has always been there so please don't suggest it's just there so TOCs can massage the figures. You only have to look at a WTT from pretty much any era and you will see.
So your train ran on time, It didn't run at 125MPH. well get over it.

My argument stems from all TOC's running slower timetables for IC than they ever have done, the trains that beat the timetable just to sit outside stations shows padding is too much and damn right annoying when journey times could be done quicker if there was more vision from those who own the trains and those who service the infrastructure. My gripe is that 125mph isn't quick compared to high-speed lines on the continent and Scotland isn't served well with such speeds SO....I feel the least my TOC can do is use the 125mph capability its given to get me to my destination a lot quicker than averaging 75mph Sunday or no Sunday - it's pathetic. The only thing that needs to be got over here is those who take the view that such average speeds are OK - they're not - so get over that!

Padding is done because all concerned in the TOC's and Network Rail cannot run a railway very well just yet. Costs are over-inflated, timetables could be faster as 10mins of padding is ridiculous because of 'just in-case events' as that just shows how much confidence you have in the network when you need to give so much padding. I think 5 mins was given in the past so we've doubled where we were and have the slowest timetables than at any point in history and the only TOC to have bucked that trend are Virgin and XC but then again, Virgin had investment and even that didn't do the full job and as for XC - I can walk quicker!

I'm well aware of the issues why and they're not all TOC's fault but people used to have pride in getting to destinations as quick as possible on IC and that has just disappeared. Not only has it gone, it's gone backwards. In what world that you live in is it ok to go slower according to your timetable than in the 1970's?!!! Great Western has gradually increased times and I don't give a damn as to why if it's getting to destinations just to sit outside stations when I could be arriving about 15mins quicker than I currently do and half an hour quicker at weekends.

 

[Minilad]

Oh how simple and straightforward everything must be in your world.

 

[notadriver]

But what about compensation for delays? And what about temporary speed restrictions. These cost delays which means customers could try and claim compensation. Also delay minute costs are passed frequently between TOCs and Network rail.

 

[RichW1]

Exactly which is what XC is missing. TOC's run 10minute windows for very good reason. XC is the type that will find an excuse for poor effort on the part of those running the railways. The excuses will range from as 'what's the point when you only catch up with a red signal' to 'there's no problem if the train's on time' well in that case let's make it 10 hours to Scotland and 3 hours to Bristol - because it doesn't matter - in fact let's take a cup of tea half way through the journey and read the paper!

 

[Woody]

. There are also much greater concerns than the London to Scotland journey time, on routes where attaining 125mph is not possible for much of the journey, such as the Midland Main Line and GWML west of Exeter, that need to be addressed first.

The so called GWML main line west of Exeter to Plymouth and Cornwall is now in reality a mere secondary line infrastructure wise with maximum sustainable line speeds of around 60mph and has become the cinderella of Britains main line network.A shocking situation when you look at the billions of pounds of public money that has been poured into the national rail network since rail privatisation to very little avail infrastructure wise west of Exeter.HS2 and 225mph running all very nice but I would be happy with 80/90mph west of Exeter.The way the coalition government is going on railways we are in danger of becoming an all or nothing railway network.

 

[159220]

My argument stems from all TOC's running slower timetables for IC than they ever have done, the trains that beat the timetable just to sit outside stations shows padding is too much and damn right annoying when journey times could be done quicker if there was more vision from those who own the trains and those who service the infrastructure. My gripe is that 125mph isn't quick compared to high-speed lines on the continent and Scotland isn't served well with such speeds SO....I feel the least my TOC can do is use the 125mph capability its given to get me to my destination a lot quicker than averaging 75mph Sunday or no Sunday - it's pathetic. The only thing that needs to be got over here is those who take the view that such average speeds are OK - they're not - so get over that!

Padding is done because all concerned in the TOC's and Network Rail cannot run a railway very well just yet. Costs are over-inflated, timetables could be faster as 10mins of padding is ridiculous because of 'just in-case events' as that just shows how much confidence you have in the network when you need to give so much padding. I think 5 mins was given in the past so we've doubled where we were and have the slowest timetables than at any point in history and the only TOC to have bucked that trend are Virgin and XC but then again, Virgin had investment and even that didn't do the full job and as for XC - I can walk quicker!

I'm well aware of the issues why and they're not all TOC's fault but people used to have pride in getting to destinations as quick as possible on IC and that has just disappeared. Not only has it gone, it's gone backwards. In what world that you live in is it ok to go slower according to your timetable than in the 1970's?!!! Great Western has gradually increased times and I don't give a damn as to why if it's getting to destinations just to sit outside stations when I could be arriving about 15mins quicker than I currently do and half an hour quicker at weekends.

Here here! You have said exactly what i would of wanted to say in reply to this attidude, well its on time, so why complain if it didnt run at speed!
I also read the idea that, oh no you cannot run at linespeed as you will only catch up with a stopper, which also has a padded timetable. It is pathetic in the modern age of computer aided technology not to think we can have some more vision here and plan things better. God knows how Thameslink is going to cope with 24 trains an hour! Why on earth is the timetable not modeled on linespeed rather than the TOC saving their booty and not getting fined for being 5 mins late etc? Surely 125 MPH linesspeeds exist for that reason, 125 MPH running. When planning the stopping service infront of the non-stopping service, this should be planned too.
Surely maintaining stretches of line to a higher speed costs more, if all timetabled fasts have been put infront of stoppers, surely lets save some cash, reduce the linespeeds and maintance for such a speed and run everything in fear of catching up with other services....
Back to Japan..they run there timestables to the second. All trains obtain line speed. Why do we in this country make it so hard.
We need to choose what do we want. 100/125 MPH trains running to linespeed and making journeys quicker point to point, thus becoming more competitive with road and air. Or a cheaper network, running to 75/100 MPH keeping to a soft, bloated timetable where it might take longer, but your defo get there!
I think we could learn something from Concorde as mentioned earlier, if she didnt go at MACH 2, she wouldnt make NYC!!! Now thats what i call doing it propper.

 

[Minilad]

Exactly which is what XC is missing. TOC's run 10minute windows for very good reason. XC is the type that will find an excuse for poor effort on the part of those running the railways. The excuses will range from as 'what's the point when you only catch up with a red signal' to 'there's no problem if the train's on time' well in that case let's make it 10 hours to Scotland and 3 hours to Bristol - because it doesn't matter - in fact let's take a cup of tea half way through the journey and read the paper!

In the words of Dragons Den...I'm out. No point trying to explain things or give a point of view here as you obviously just won't take things on board.
OK time every train on the railway as if it is operating at 100% of line speed all the time, yes you will get a faster railway in theory but in practise it would be absolute chaos.
But hey then you will be able to complain about trains being late and missed connections instead. Meanwhile us in the real world will continue to do our best to get passengers from A to B within the quoted timetable

 

[notadriver]

Exactly which is what XC is missing. TOC's run 10minute windows for very good reason. XC is the type that will find an excuse for poor effort on the part of those running the railways. The excuses will range from as 'what's the point when you only catch up with a red signal' to 'there's no problem if the train's on time' well in that case let's make it 10 hours to Scotland and 3 hours to Bristol - because it doesn't matter - in fact let's take a cup of tea half way through the journey and read the paper!

What I mean is that timetables are padded out for good reason. Its fairly common practice. A train shouldn't be timed at top possible speed for all of its route.

 

[Minilad]

What I mean is that timetables are padded out for good reason. Its fairly common practice. A train shouldn't be timed at top possible speed for all of its route.

I wouldn't bother trying to explain things if I was you, it's obvious the OP will not listen to reasons why here

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think we could learn something from Concorde as mentioned earlier, if she didnt go at MACH 2, she wouldnt make NYC!!! Now thats what i call doing it propper.

Your ability to think of an appropriate analogy is poor. If Concorde didn't fly at MACH 2 then she'd fall out the sky. She'd run out of fuel. You wouldn't make it to New York. The same cannot be said for railways. It does not matter whether the train goes at 115mph or 125mph. One will arrive on time, and the other will arrive early. Both will arrive at their planned destinations.

 

[Minilad]

Also Concorde wouldn't have to slow down for TSRs or be checked because of trespass or animals on the line. Or reduced speed due to a bridge bash. It wouldn't have to have a longer than normal stop time at a station due to an elderly or disabled passenger boarding. Or a million and one things a train might have to do that would be beyond the influence of the nasty TOC

 

[EM2]

Question for the OP. If you were driving from Staples Corner in London (pretty much the start of the M1) to the East Midlands Designer Outlet (right next to J28 on the M1), would you plan your journey time based on driving at 70mph all the way?
Or would you pad it out a bit, because you almost certainly won't be able to drive that fast, because of traffic, or roadworks or an accident?

 

[RichW1]

I wouldn't bother trying to explain things if I was you, it's obvious the OP will not listen to reasons why here

OK let me make it simple for you as you feel your view is the only one that counts...

the route I use now is slower than in the 1970's. does that do it for you? The only thing you can say there is that you agree with things going backwards over 35years or you don't. You can have all the reasons you like but that shows me something's wrong not that you're right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Question for the OP. If you were driving from Staples Corner in London (pretty much the start of the M1) to the East Midlands Designer Outlet (right next to J28 on the M1), would you plan your journey time based on driving at 70mph all the way?
Or would you pad it out a bit, because you almost certainly won't be able to drive that fast, because of traffic, or roadworks or an accident?

I would indeed pad it out because I'm using a car and so many things can go worng with traffic which is why railways are supposed to dispense with such issues. But if we use the padding argument and let's assume that you take the same view as XC (contrary to what he thinks I am open to other points of view), the service has doubled the padded time allowed, and the real time is much longer than it used to be in the 1970's and 1980's. Is that right that that should go unchecked? Or should we just allow TOC's to keep adding a few minutes here and there until we get even longer journey times? Just posing the question. I thought human evolution was to go forward harder faster stronger not backwards. it seems to me there's a lot of excuses on subject but no desire to simply achieve what was done in history with 5 mins padding.

 

[Minilad]

I never said I was right, just offering a few observations about the way our railway operates. Reasons which you then just throw away as excuses.
How much slower is it in reality ? A couple of minutes. Are more trains running over the route now ? Almost certainly.
Unfortunately a quart into a pint pot won't go.
What do you want ? Speed for speeds sake or reliability built into the system. I think most people would have reliability. Although I could be wrong.

 

[The Planner]

What I mean is that timetables are padded out for good reason. Its fairly common practice. A train shouldn't be timed at top possible speed for all of its route.

Yes it should if the train is capable of it and there are no other pathing reasons behind it not doing so. TSRs are accounted for, anything else no and the delay minutes that any other incident causes are coded accordingly by the TDAs.

 

[Jonny]

Reading to Paddington on a Sunday is based on the 2 track timetable with slow line running times so you will pick up shedloads if you get put on the fasts. Other than that you should be going at linespeed. I will raise this at work tomorrow to see what the score is, I know FGW drivers have a farcical professional driving policy, but it shouldn't be to the point of running at 110mph as they are eating into their own capacity.

"... running at 110mph as they are eating into their own capacity"?

Is this some "conspiracy" to keep an open-access operator out?

 

[RichW1]

I never said I was right, just offering a few observations about the way our railway operates. Reasons which you then just throw away as excuses.
How much slower is it in reality ? A couple of minutes. Are more trains running over the route now ? Almost certainly.
Unfortunately a quart into a pint pot won't go.
What do you want ? Speed for speeds sake or reliability built into the system. I think most people would have reliability. Although I could be wrong.

Ok let me correct myself here - I'm not dismissing that reasons exist but what I am saying is that those reasons have created a step backwards in journey times. It used to be 5mins padding, now it's double that and that shows me the network isn't very robust if 10mins is counted as 'on-time'. The real times were faster and I have had several journeys where a train has sat outside York for instance for 5mins easily. If this happens so much then i really do have to question the timetable because that's 5 mins less on the journey that could've been achieved in many instances and over a whole journey it adds up. Padding has increased and real journey times have too, so I'm saying that if you have 125mph capability it should be timetabled as such with maybe 5mins padding not at 110/115mph with 10mins padding!

I just believe in things moving forward in time that's all and if not then at least maintaining the status quo would be polite at the very least. But that's not the case and I'm sure I have a right to be a little peeved if since the late 1970's my journeys have got longer using the same trains?

 

[The Planner]

"... running at 110mph as they are eating into their own capacity"?

Is this some "conspiracy" to keep an open-access operator out?

No it isnt

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No it isnt

Everything with Jonny seems to be illegal or a conspiracy

 

[tbtc]

In what world that you live in is it ok to go slower according to your timetable than in the 1970's?!!!

You are aware that most services are a lot more frequent than they were back then?

Look at how intense the track use is nowadays compared to back then.

For example, on the GWML (which you are discussing) there are around twelve trains from Reading to London most hours. Four or five trains an hour from Swindon to Reading. IIRC we have the most intense long-distance routes (other countries can do faster, but where there are only a couple of trains a day).

If we were building lines now, we'd do things differently (segregated lines, grade separated junctions etc), but there are limits to what you can squeeze into the current infrastructure.

We need a railway that we can rely on, which means something which can deliver its promises around 95% of the time. If you want the timetable to be based on everything working at its absolute maximum speed, no contingency, no "plan B" (e.g. what if a 168 deputises for a HST on a duty) then things will be marginally faster on the days when it all works like clockwork, but the minute one little thing goes wrong, the whole thing will fall apart.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You are aware that most services are a lot more frequent than they were back then?

Look at how intense the track use is nowadays compared to back then.

For example, on the GWML (which you are discussing) there are around twelve trains from Reading to London most hours. Four or five trains an hour from Swindon to Reading. IIRC we have the most intense long-distance routes (other countries can do faster, but where there are only a couple of trains a day).

If we were building lines now, we'd do things differently (segregated lines, grade separated junctions etc), but there are limits to what you can squeeze into the current infrastructure.

We need a railway that we can rely on, which means something which can deliver its promises around 95% of the time. If you want the timetable to be based on everything working at its absolute maximum speed, no contingency, no "plan B" (e.g. what if a 168 deputises for a HST on a duty) then things will be marginally faster on the days when it all works like clockwork, but the minute one little thing goes wrong, the whole thing will fall apart.

1980s:
Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) - 1tph
Paddington-Cardiff/Swansea - 1tph
Kings Cross-Leeds - 1tph
Euston-Manchester - 1tph.

2010:
Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) - 2tph (increasing to 4 with OHLE/IEP?)
Paddington-Cardiff - 2tph (with 1 to Swansea)
Kings Cross-Leeds - 2tph (slight increase due May 2011)
Euston-Manchester - 3tph (provision of fourth).

I don't care if journey times are fractionally longer etc, I'd quite content with 2x/3x the frequency!

 

[DarloRich]

Don’t seem to have to many problems of this nature on the ECML.

Until recently (last few months) I often travelled York - Darlington. Which is about 44 miles. The quickest I did it for a long time was a bloody voyager @ 26 minutes but an XC HST 43301 & 43321 did it in 25 minutes on a late running XC service. That is an average of about 105mph! I also did 24 minutes behind 91116 to the signal gantry next to the down passenger loop but we were held there to allow a pacer across onto the Boro line. (i keep a log of each journey i go on)

That suggests that it was full knacker most of the way!

 

[tbtc]

1980s:
Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) - 1tph
Paddington-Cardiff/Swansea - 1tph
Kings Cross-Leeds - 1tph
Euston-Manchester - 1tph.

2010:
Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) - 2tph (increasing to 4 with OHLE/IEP?)
Paddington-Cardiff - 2tph (with 1 to Swansea)
Kings Cross-Leeds - 2tph (slight increase due May 2011)
Euston-Manchester - 3tph (provision of fourth).

I don't care if journey times are fractionally longer etc, I'd quite content with 2x/3x the frequency!

Cheers for the figures.

I can accept a journey that is scheduled to take five minutes longer (and more likely to hit that target) rather than a long wait at the station for the next train.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Cheers for the figures.

I can accept a journey that is scheduled to take five minutes longer (and more likely to hit that target) rather than a long wait at the station for the next train.

Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) / Mondays-Fridays / October 1989-May 1990:
Average jouney time: 1h41 to Bristol / 1h44 to Paddington.
Calling points: Slough, Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath.
Frequency: Hourly.
Fastest to Bristol: 0950 taking 1h21, calling at Reading and Bath only.
Fastest to Paddington: 1550 taking 1h24, calling at Bath and Reading only.

^^^ Makes interesting reading ^^^

Should also note:
1980s:
London-Norwich - 1tph

2010: London-Norwich - 2 tph

 

[The Planner]

If you want the timetable to be based on everything working at its absolute maximum speed, no contingency, no "plan B" (e.g. what if a 168 deputises for a HST on a duty) then things will be marginally faster on the days when it all works like clockwork, but the minute one little thing goes wrong, the whole thing will fall apart.

You can't plan to fail though and it will get to the point soon enough where the "padding" will get squeezed out as you won't fit more trains in.

In your hypothetical example you would never build in a contingency for a slower train replacing a faster one on a booked WTT schedule. If that occured FGW would cop for every single delay minute that caused much the same way Virgin does for the Prentendalino doing Euston to Brum, unless they put in a STP or VSTP schedule based on the deputising traction. A faster train replacing a slower unit obviously makes no difference as it keeps to time.

 

[flymo]

Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) / Mondays-Fridays / October 1989-May 1990:
Average jouney time: 1h41 to Bristol / 1h44 to Paddington.
Calling points: Slough, Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath.
Frequency: Hourly.
Fastest to Bristol: 0950 taking 1h21, calling at Reading and Bath only.
Fastest to Paddington: 1550 taking 1h24, calling at Bath and Reading only.

^^^ Makes interesting reading ^^^

Certainly does...Thanks.

 

[87015]

Paddington-Bristol (Temple Meads) / Mondays-Fridays / October 1989-May 1990:
Average jouney time: 1h41 to Bristol / 1h44 to Paddington.
Calling points: Slough, Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath.
Frequency: Hourly.
Fastest to Bristol: 0950 taking 1h21, calling at Reading and Bath only.
Fastest to Paddington: 1550 taking 1h24, calling at Bath and Reading only.

Source?
The 1981 pattern (from 'Hellfire' game) was, and a WTT for 86 suggests practically unchanged:

One (xx20 off Padd) calling Reading and Bath only, getting to Temple Meads in 1hr 25m, and another (xx45 off Padd) calling as you have said in around 1h45 and the same pattern in reverse. I'd be surprised if they had halved the frequency in 89.

'Padding' time surely shouldn't be in the sectional running times* in any place, it should be in <x> performance minutes, station dwell times and differential at terminus. Its a bit naughty to put {x} adjustment time in the running times for no good reason.

* I know there are some routes where the [x] engineering time is taken to account in SRTs, but thats not the general regime.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't care if journey times are fractionally longer etc, I'd quite content with 2x/3x the frequency!

Off topic, but that a poor fallback argument for most leisure passengers. You can have a train every 10 seconds, but when the passengers are priced onto advance tickets there is only 1tpd regardless of actual frequency.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Source?
..............................

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Off topic, but that a poor fallback argument for most leisure passengers. You can have a train every 10 seconds, but when the passengers are priced onto advance tickets there is only 1tpd regardless of actual frequency.

Source: InterCity A Guide to Services 2 October 1989 to 13 May 1990, 120 pages, black with a white swallow on. Slightly smaller than standard modern-day pocket timetable.

 

[TomJ93]

The Wolverhampton 390 is often 5minutes early at Coventry.

 

[Mystic Force]

With the coming of ETMRS in the future (if/when?) and the replacement of signal aspect with target speeds. Will drivers/TOCs be able to decide that they will run slower than the instructed speed or will they be compelled to obey the posted speed?