Marches blocked yet again by A Broken Down Freight.

[Gareth Marston]

Nothing can be done about it as long as the Freight Company is paying Route Access Charges. That's the was the system works now. If a Thunderbird loco was to be provided, who would pay for it as several Freight Companies use the route.

Didnt effect me southbound I was 0940 off Shrewsbury saw the 70 moving as we came through Pontypool and Inn had a DB liveried 60 at the rear.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Something is going to have to be done about this.

The planned reversible signalling through the Marches will help.
Although if this one was at Cwmbran that has already been resignalled.

 

[trainophile]

I think that is a slight exaggeration!

Well I'm glad I'm not travelling today, whatever you want to call it...

Can't C&P from the ATW Journey Check page, but as of now:

1230 MAN to Milford Haven started from Shrewsbury
1330 MAN to Tenby started 15 minutes late
1430 MAN to Milford Haven started from Wilmslow

All the above due to a broken down freight train. As well as various other alterations due to "a train fault" - we are not told which train!

 

[a good off]

The planned reversible signalling through the Marches will help.
Although if this one was at Cwmbran that has already been resignalled.

I think you'll be waiting a while for the planned modular resignalling. In the event of it actually happening lets hope it is more reliable than the Crewe - Shrewsbury and Norwich - Ely!

 

[Jamesb1974]

Something is going to have to be done about this.

What do you propose?

 

[PHILIPE]

The assisting loco had to come from Stoke Gifford.

 

[trainophile]

What do you propose?

Harsher penalties for the freight hauliers when their trains break down? Would be an incentive to maintain them in fit for purpose order.

 

[HowardGWR]

What do you propose?

Compulsory double heading where no means of avoiding a line blockage is present?

 

[Pacerpilot]

Compulsory double heading where no means of avoiding a line blockage is present?

And running units in multiple too? I spent hours at Hereford with an empty coal set before Christmas as a 150 had failed at Tram Inn...


And here, an ATW 67 was blocking the line with a brake fault. 175s either side so they couldn't rescue it so it was left up to me.

Trains are mechanical contraptions and they will break down whether they haul people or freight. End of.

 

[craigybagel]

The problem on the Marches line isn't with freight trains failing; as Pacerpilot says, ATW's units are just as likely to fail. It's true that when they fail, it does cause a lot of spectacular problems, but most of the the disruption we see regularly on the Marches line is not due to that.

The main problem is freight trains running late for whatever reason. I'm not sure if this is the case on other lines, but on the Marches line late running freights are particularly disruptive, due to the long AB sections (I believe it is the longest continous stretch of AB signalling in the country), the steep gradients, and the gaps between potential passing places (some of the freight trains on the route are too long for most of the loops - the only place they can be looped between Maindee Junction and Severn Bridge Junction is the through line at Hereford).

Once a train is delayed, there is very little opportunity to make that time up with the TSR's south of Ludlow and at Whitchurch, and the tight window Manchester services have to get across the WCML at Crewe. A late running Holyhead bound service can impact a southbound service as there is a very short gap between the two services using the single line section north of Wrexham. Manchester services only have a 15 minute turnaround at Piccadilly which again causes trouble for late running services.

I'm not sure what the solution to this is as I have no idea if there is any underlying cause to the freights running late, but double-heading won't help very much.

 

[dysonsphere]

For a start exend the loops so they are long enough for the longest freight this has to be a "cheap" option, and maybe put in a few more loops if possible. Other than that a thunderbird paid for between all the companies using the route as a % of their usage.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Harsher penalties for the freight hauliers when their trains break down? Would be an incentive to maintain them in fit for purpose order.

So punitive penalties would solve the issue? As Pacerpilot correctly points out, train failures are hardly a freight specific problem. If you're going to impose harsher penalties then it needs to apply across the board.

Double heading. I'm pretty sure the cost benefits would outweigh the potential savings in times of failure. Two engines full of fuel, twice the engine hours, wear and tear etc. And what happens when it's a failure caused not by the locomotive, but by one of the wagons? A severe wheel flat, broken coupling, brake fault etc etc etc. Double heading won't do much good then.

Better signalling regulation? There is a certain signal box in Crewe with a huge sign on the panel saying 'NO early runners!'. Regardless of time or day you get held to time. Where is the sense in that when it comes to working a heavy freight over the Marches? If your 20/30/40 minutes early, let it run and don't hold up what's behind you.

More powerful locomotives or lighter trains? Massive cost implications for both. Capital outlay for new engines and loss of profit/revenue by losing a few wagons. I don't know the figures but I'd guess that by the time wages, fuel, access charges, running costs etc are taken out of the equation there an only be a few wagons actually making a profit on a laden freight?

Perhaps a standby engine is the answer but as someone pointed out, it would have to be paid for by all the FOCs (and possible the TOCs as well if it is capable of rescuing failed passenger services) AND have a working arrangement where all crews signed the traction. Not an insurmountable problem but one I can't see happening sadly.

 

[NX]

When the initial fault was declared, control asked the signallers at several boxes if the train could recess in their loops, it was to long for both of them. The decision was taken to get the yet to completely fail train to Hereford, where the loop was long enough. Unfortunately it failed before it could get to Hereford. Rescue loco was scrabbled before the actual official failure happened, to drag the train from Hereford.

NX

 

[Pacerpilot]

Lighter trains simply aren't an option for us. We are a business. We don't receive limitless bungs of cash from the taxpayer. There simply isn't time or capacity time to load and run any more trains to make up the revenue. We run three northbound coal trains out of Bristol by day and three at. At night. From arriving at the docks, running round, loading the train and weighing it takes roughly two hours. That's 12 hours of terminal time. We have to share the coal terminal with DBS, Colas and GBRf.
Moreso, the weights aren't really much of issue. It's only the climb to Pontypool, the long slog up Llanfihangel and Craven Arms to Church Stretton that slows us down. The rest of the time we run at our maximum 60mph.

Most of the loops will already take a loco and 20 wagons, barring Abergavenny. Looping freights at Abergavenny is less than ideal anyway.
It'd leave us with a standing start for Llanfihangel, the longest climb on the route. We are already down to 12-15mph for most of the climb with a 60mph run up to it.

As Craigybagel states, late running has proven problematic. There isn't much scope for running the freight out of path during the day. Performance has improved in recent months though due to performance initiatives to improve loading times at the port. There are a number of particularly vicious TSRs along the route which absolutely hammer us. Getting a 2100t train back up to line speed from a 20mph restriction, and the bottom of gradient is not easy.

 

[The Planner]

Better signalling regulation? There is a certain signal box in Crewe with a huge sign on the panel saying 'NO early runners!'. Regardless of time or day you get held to time. Where is the sense in that when it comes to working a heavy freight over the Marches? If your 20/30/40 minutes early, let it run and don't hold up what's behind you.

Which one is that? Gresty Lane? that's going this year or next anyway.

As for the loop length issue, part of that is down to antiquated issues with the maximum length train the route is allowed, in this case it is based on the loops at Hereford so an operator can bid for paths up to that length regardless of if it can get pathed.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Lighter trains simply aren't an option for us. We are a business. We don't receive limitless bungs of cash from the taxpayer.

I think this tends to be either ignored or overlooked.

Trains are mechanical contraptions and they will break down whether they haul people or freight. End of.

Quite correct. Mechanical objects can and do break. It is a fact of life. Sometimes the cause of the breakdowns are due to poor maintenance, sometimes poor design or sometimes just freak occurrences. No amount of penalties will stop freak occurrences from happening.

The fitters had never experienced the fault that caused this total loss of engine oil and it wasn't a part known for failing, but it did!

 

[D1009]

Better signalling regulation? There is a certain signal box in Crewe with a huge sign on the panel saying 'NO early runners!'. Regardless of time or day you get held to time. Where is the sense in that when it comes to working a heavy freight over the Marches? If your 20/30/40 minutes early, let it run and don't hold up what's behind you.

That's nonsense, during the daytime such a policy would almost inevitably cause further delay, due to the difference in performance characteristics between passenger and freight.

 

[Jamesb1974]

That's nonsense, during the daytime such a policy would almost inevitably cause further delay, due to the difference in performance characteristics between passenger and freight.

Well of course no one is suggesting that services are just left to their own devices, but when it comes to performance characteristics, bringing heavy freight trains to stand purely to make them wait time is counter productive. They lose speed and momentum and then have to get back up to speed again. What I was suggesting was that instead of making freights wait to the second, then why not let them run and get out of the way? A freight running at 60mph having been left to run is far better than one running at 20 or 30mph having been kept to the second due to some regulatory diktat.

This is a real scenario.

A freight service, carrying a lightweight load from Donnington RFT to Warrington is running 40 minutes early. It gets held at 'a certain box in Crewe' until right time. During the wait time, NOT ONE train passes the freight. It is a class 6 service timed to run at 60mph. By the time it leaves 'a certain box in Crewe', it is late and ends up at its destination late.

Now you tell me, what is the sense in holding that service to time? It didn't interfere with any other service as nothing passed it. Due to the regulation, it ended up late running. It might just be me, but I can't honestly see the sense in that.

 

[D1009]

Well of course no one is suggesting that services are just left to their own devices, but when it comes to performance characteristics, bringing heavy freight trains to stand purely to make them wait time is counter productive. They lose speed and momentum and then have to get back up to speed again.

This is a real scenario.

A freight service, carrying a lightweight load from Donnington RFT to Warrington is running 40 minutes early. It gets held at 'a certain box in Crewe' until right time. During the wait time, NOT ONE train passes the freight. It is a class 6 service timed to run at 60mph. By the time it leaves 'a certain box in Crewe', it is late and ends up at its destination late.

Now you tell me, what is the sense in holding that service to time? It didn't interfere with any other service as nothing passed it. Due to the regulation, it ended up late running. It might just be me, but I can't honestly see the sense in that.

So it happily runs to Shrewsbury Crewe Jn 40 early. There is nowhere there to regulate it, and more trains come into play, such as Holyhead to Cardiff, Heart of Wales Line trains, and other conflicting movements at Severn Bridge Junction, all running to time. Once it has waited for all these, off it sets up the bank to Church Stretton, hotly pursued by the next Manchester Cardiff, which would stop for long periods at the various signals. That delay would be correctly attributed to the box at Crewe which let the freight run early, hence the big notice.

 

[Hynod]

Some delays are caused by a late running passenger services to begin with, trains can be held at Filton or Pilning for late running London - S.Wales services, they then arrive at Maindee a couple of minutes late and as mentioned before Freight timings are tight in the day time (often booked into a loop 1 minute before passenger is booked to leave section behind) this late arrival at Maindee has a knock on effect to the ATW services. Also TSR at Dinmore tunnel, Ludlow (bottom of incline), Bromfield and Whitchurch severely slow the trains down. Wooferton to Bromfield will lose you 5 minutes alone.

Look at the train that failed, left early but held at Filton for something else.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H01043/2015/01/23/advanced

 

[Jamesb1974]

So it happily runs to Shrewsbury Crewe Jn 40 early. There is nowhere there to regulate it, and more trains come into play, such as Holyhead to Cardiff, Heart of Wales Line trains, and other conflicting movements at Severn Bridge Junction, all running to time. Once it has waited for all these, off it sets up the bank to Church Stretton, hotly pursued by the next Manchester Cardiff, which would stop for long periods at the various signals. That delay would be correctly attributed to the box at Crewe which let the freight run early, hence the big notice.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it was going the other way and could have been regulated at Crewe Salop goods, Crewe Coal Yard, Winsford Junction or Hartford Junction.

from Donnington RFT to Warrington

There are plenty of other places (not just on the Marches) where similar situations arise. Being put out behind an all stations stopper from Olive Mount Jnc to Earlestown when you could easily have attained 60mph by the bottom of Whiston bank and probably 35-40mph at the top is another mystery. The stopper probably doesn't go much faster between station stops.

It's common sense. Big heavy moving objects take a lot of time to get up to speed and a lot of time to stop!

 

[GB]

All comes down to TDA, costs and signaller getting their arse chewed by managment so its no wonder why a no early freight policy exists.

 

[D1009]

A freight service, carrying a lightweight load from Donnington RFT to Warrington

My apologies, missed that bit, I thought you were criticising regulation of heavy freights on the Marches route, which is a slightly different scenario from the WCML.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Lighter trains simply aren't an option for us. We are a business. We don't receive limitless bungs of cash from the taxpayer. There simply isn't time or capacity time to load and run any more trains to make up the revenue. We run three northbound coal trains out of Bristol by day and three at. At night. From arriving at the docks, running round, loading the train and weighing it takes roughly two hours. That's 12 hours of terminal time. We have to share the coal terminal with DBS, Colas and GBRf.
Moreso, the weights aren't really much of issue. It's only the climb to Pontypool, the long slog up Llanfihangel and Craven Arms to Church Stretton that slows us down. The rest of the time we run at our maximum 60mph.

Most of the loops will already take a loco and 20 wagons, barring Abergavenny. Looping freights at Abergavenny is less than ideal anyway.
It'd leave us with a standing start for Llanfihangel, the longest climb on the route. We are already down to 12-15mph for most of the climb with a 60mph run up to it.

As Craigybagel states, late running has proven problematic. There isn't much scope for running the freight out of path during the day. Performance has improved in recent months though due to performance initiatives to improve loading times at the port. There are a number of particularly vicious TSRs along the route which absolutely hammer us. Getting a 2100t train back up to line speed from a 20mph restriction, and the bottom of gradient is not easy.

From a freight drivers perspective how do you view the Welsh Governments aspiration for a hourly Cardiff to Holyhead service, what impact will these extra services have on timekeeping, regulation etc on the Marches?

 

[Jamesb1974]

My apologies, missed that bit, I thought you were criticising regulation of heavy freights on the Marches route, which is a slightly different scenario from the WCML.

Indirectly talking about regulation on the Marches, but talking about regulation in general.

 

[Tomnick]

We (elsewhere) quite regularly run freights and others early when the opportunity presents itself. If it's got a margin to get to somewhere where it can either keep running or be regulated to time if necessary, why not? It's out of the way then, should a problem develop or the train that it's booked to follow start running late (in turn squeezing the freight's path, potentially knocking on to the train behind that). Never had a problem with delay attribution as a result, even when I've run one early and delayed something else as a result (foreseeing, and avoiding, a much greater delay that'd otherwise ensue when it came to its booked path).

 

[The Planner]

Freight timings are tight in the day time (often booked into a loop 1 minute before passenger is booked to leave section behind)

Bit naughty, should always be 2 minutes gap from leaving to entering an AB section when planning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From a freight drivers perspective how do you view the Welsh Governments aspiration for a hourly Cardiff to Holyhead service, what impact will these extra services have on timekeeping, regulation etc on the Marches?

Technically none if they are planned properly. If it goes down the can then very little difference to now, the constraints are the same and will have to be dealt with in the same way.

 

[D1009]

From a freight drivers perspective how do you view the Welsh Governments aspiration for a hourly Cardiff to Holyhead service, what impact will these extra services have on timekeeping, regulation etc on the Marches?

From a train planner's perspective, I suspect the capacity of the route south of Shrewsbury has already been reached if the existing daytime freight capacity has to be maintained. Even if the proposed resignalling eventually happens, anything beyond 2 paths per hour for passenger trains, wherever they are from and to, will have to be shared with the freight.

 

[Llanigraham]

For a start exend the loops so they are long enough for the longest freight this has to be a "cheap" option, and maybe put in a few more loops if possible.

Where and who pays for them?

 

[The Planner]

No one will as unless they allow extra passenger services to run then they will have no business case, they will never get built for operational flelxibility.