Poor regulation of the train to Aberystwyth?

[Shrop]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/railway-efficiency.224477

Today's trip was from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and back, and all day long it seems that trains have been losing time throughout the route.

When our train arrived back into Shrewsbury at 17.46, some 27 minutes late, you might think the reverse service to Aberystwyth would be champing at the bit to leave, yet it didn't leave until 17.55.

Sense would suggest that it could have got as far as Sutton Bridge junction and been ready to lose no more time in which case it could have passed the opposing train at Talerddig. However, there seemed to be an air of despondency about the whole operation, ie there wasn't much point leaving Shrewsbury at all, because it would only lose more time en route and might as well pass the opposing service at Newtown.

So, as I write the westbound service is now 45 minutes late, whereas it could have been just 15 minutes late. Okay, other trains use the Sutton Bridge area, but the excuses often wouldn't stand much scrutiny.

 

[Starmill]

If the 1727 service to Aberystwyth had departed as soon as it was ready, it would have blocked the 1747 service to Milford Haven for some 10 minutes.

 

[Shrop]

If the 1727 service to Aberystwyth had departed as soon as it was ready, it would have blocked the 1747 service to Milford Haven for some 10 minutes.

Really? The eastbound service was through Sutton Bridge at 17.44, which means the westbound service, the 17.27, could have cleared Sutton Bridge very shortly after that, ie by 17.46, in line with my earlier comment. The Milford Haven train didn't pass through Sutton Bridge until 17.52, so the Aberystwyth train had no need at all to hold up the Milford Haven train. Or have I misunderstood something here?

 

[Starmill]

Really? The eastbound service was through Sutton Bridge at 17.44, which means the westbound service, the 17.27, could have cleared Sutton Bridge very shortly after that, ie by 17.46, in line with my earlier comment. The Milford Haven train didn't pass through Sutton Bridge until 17.52, so the Aberystwyth train had no need at all to hold up the Milford Haven train. Or have I misunderstood something here?

Surely there's no way the box can clear the line for two movements within in 2 minutes?

 

[Shrop]

Surely there's no way the box can clear the line for two movements within in 2 minutes?

This is heading into a single line section, and at Talerddig further along the route they seem to manage in less than 2 minutes. Okay, so allow a bit more than 2 minutes, but there are 6 minutes in question here ...

 

[Starmill]

There doesn't appear to be 6 minutes to me. The decision needs to be made in advance of offering either train the route which one is going to proceed first, and in this case the Milford Haven one was chosen, which isn't an enormous surprise given the timings. If the first train is offered the route and then can't proceed without a further few minutes of delay (e.g. the catering trolley needs to be loaded or a passenger in a wheelchair requests the use of the ramp) it's just poor luck. At Tallerdig they're not still using Absolute Block so there's far less uncertainty about how long it will take a train to pass somewhere, and when the line is proven clear.

 

[Shrop]

There doesn't appear to be 6 minutes to me. The decision needs to be made in advance of offering either train the route which one is going to proceed first, and in this case the Milford Haven one was chosen, which isn't an enormous surprise given the timings. If the first train is offered the route and then can't proceed without a further few minutes of delay (e.g. the catering trolley needs to be loaded or a passenger in a wheelchair requests the use of the ramp) it's just poor luck. At Tallerdig they're not still using Absolute Block so there's far less uncertainty about how long it will take a train to pass somewhere, and when the line is proven clear.

This begs the question of why the Milford Haven train was chosen. The eastbound train was only 21 minutes late leaving Welshpool, and at that point it would have been expected to reach Sutton Bridge with 14 minutes to spare for the westbound train to pass before holding up the Milford Haven train. Add to this, the fact that time after time after time, the train that is scheduled to run first normally takes priority unless there is a very good reason to change things. However, this is not my biggest grievance, it pales in comparison with passengers banging on the doors of trains that they want to board (as mentioned earlier in this thread), only to have the train leave without them, for no reason other than to keep to a pathing, when there is no conflict to that path in the late evening.

 

[craigybagel]

It may well be the case that it was the same traincrew on both the OPs train into Shrewsbury and the next service to Aberystwyth - meaning the latter couldn't depart until the former had arrived.

 

[Doveymain158]

Traincrew on inward working from Aberystwyth work the next service to Aberystwyth. They swap trains at Shrewsbury

 

[O L Leigh]

9 minutes to arrive, hand-over, perhaps pop in to use the facilities and make a fresh brew (which I'm sure the OP does not begrudge), set up the outbound working, get the road and depart sounds pretty smart to me.

 

[craigybagel]

9 minutes to arrive, hand-over, perhaps pop in to use the facilities and make a fresh brew (which I'm sure the OP does not begrudge), set up the outbound working, get the road and depart sounds pretty smart to me.

Especially when you consider it involves setting up ERTMS on the Aberystwyth bound 158 which takes about 2 minutes all by itself.

 

[Llanigraham]

Surely there's no way the box can clear the line for two movements within in 2 minutes?

They couldn't! I know from experience, and confirmed by Craigybagel above.

This is heading into a single line section, and at Talerddig further along the route they seem to manage in less than 2 minutes. Okay, so allow a bit more than 2 minutes, but there are 6 minutes in question here ...

You cannot compare the operation at Talerddig, which is partly automatic and ERTMS, with the manual operation of Sutton Bridge Junction Box which is both Absolute Block and ERTMS. You appear not to be taking that into consideration.

 

[Shrop]

9 minutes to arrive, hand-over, perhaps pop in to use the facilities and make a fresh brew (which I'm sure the OP does not begrudge), set up the outbound working, get the road and depart sounds pretty smart to me.

I guess you're right.

 

[talltim]

Especially when you consider it involves setting up ERTMS on the Aberystwyth bound 158 which takes about 2 minutes all by itself.

Why does that take so long?

 

[craigybagel]

Why does that take so long?

Most of the time is spent waiting for the whole thing to boot up. Once that's done, the driver then has to input a few details about the train into the system.

The process doesn't start until the driver activates that cab using their key - and the train can't be moved more than 2 metres until it's complete.

 

[wobman]

Especially when you consider it involves setting up ERTMS on the Aberystwyth bound 158 which takes about 2 minutes all by itself.

Ertms is a pain in the neck thats being polite, the traincrew did a good turnaround considering all that was involved.
Hopefully the next gen ertms fitted to the 197 units is far better and quicker to boot up.

 

[Shrop]

Most of the time is spent waiting for the whole thing to boot up. Once that's done, the driver then has to input a few details about the train into the system.

The process doesn't start until the driver activates that cab using their key - and the train can't be moved more than 2 metres until it's complete.

"Waiting for the whole thing to boot up"? Okay, I accept your comment that this is the case, and therefore explains the delays. My concern is, is this really making advances in terms of time savings for passengers? Yes, it might have efficiency advantages in some ways, but this operational efficiency always seems to be the primary objective, almost irrespective of how much it delays passengers. It sounds somehow comparable with going into a shop to pay for a newspaper, only to be forced to wait several minutes for a faulty scanner to be investigated even though you have the right money. Eventually there has to be a point where the value of the customers' time is recognised, such that it can't keep on being sacrificed in the name of operational efficiency.

 

[6Gman]

Traincrew on inward working from Aberystwyth work the next service to Aberystwyth. They swap trains at Shrewsbury

Am I reading this correctly that the traincrew diagram is basically:

Mach d.1608
Salop a.1719 Relieved by xxx
Relieve yyy at 17xx
Salop d.1727

That looks . . . ambitious?

I used to write the diagrams for Machynlleth depot and would have been very wary of that sharp a turnround. (Mind you, it's the sort of thing Mach and Pwllheli would accept. At Crewe or Saltley there'd be a walkout! )

 

[zwk500]

"Waiting for the whole thing to boot up"? Okay, I accept your comment that this is the case, and therefore explains the delays. My concern is, is this really making advances in terms of time savings for passengers? Yes, it might have efficiency advantages in some ways, but this operational efficiency always seems to be the primary objective, almost irrespective of how much it delays passengers. It sounds somehow comparable with going into a shop to pay for a newspaper, only to be forced to wait several minutes for a faulty scanner to be investigated even though you have the right money. Eventually there has to be a point where the value of the customers' time is recognised, such that it can't keep on being sacrificed in the name of operational efficiency.

It's 2 minutes. I think this may be a tad overreacting.

 

[craigybagel]

"Waiting for the whole thing to boot up"? Okay, I accept your comment that this is the case, and therefore explains the delays. My concern is, is this really making advances in terms of time savings for passengers? Yes, it might have efficiency advantages in some ways, but this operational efficiency always seems to be the primary objective, almost irrespective of how much it delays passengers. It sounds somehow comparable with going into a shop to pay for a newspaper, only to be forced to wait several minutes for a faulty scanner to be investigated even though you have the right money. Eventually there has to be a point where the value of the customers' time is recognised, such that it can't keep on being sacrificed in the name of operational efficiency.

True, but we're talking about an experimental system that's over 10 years old now. If the 158s were staying on the Cambrian I'm sure there be looking at replacing the ERTMS equipment on the units so that it's a bit quicker, but given they've not got much longer left.....

Incidentally, the benefits of the system will be felt all over the country as ERTMS spreads. New schemes can use the lessons learnt over the last 10 years on the Cambrian.

Am I reading this correctly that the traincrew diagram is basically:

Mach d.1608
Salop a.1719 Relieved by xxx
Relieve yyy at 17xx
Salop d.1727

That looks . . . ambitious?

I used to write the diagrams for Machynlleth depot and would have been very wary of that sharp a turnround. (Mind you, it's the sort of thing Mach and Pwllheli would accept. At Crewe or Saltley there'd be a walkout! )

It's arrive at 17:19 and depart at 17:30, but yes it is indeed the same driver on both services (a different guard though for what it's worth).

The current timetable has quite a few tight turnarounds like that all across the network. It's making the most of what is still post Covid a depleted work force.

 

[O L Leigh]

"Waiting for the whole thing to boot up"? Okay, I accept your comment that this is the case, and therefore explains the delays. My concern is, is this really making advances in terms of time savings for passengers? Yes, it might have efficiency advantages in some ways, but this operational efficiency always seems to be the primary objective, almost irrespective of how much it delays passengers. It sounds somehow comparable with going into a shop to pay for a newspaper, only to be forced to wait several minutes for a faulty scanner to be investigated even though you have the right money. Eventually there has to be a point where the value of the customers' time is recognised, such that it can't keep on being sacrificed in the name of operational efficiency.

In the normal course of events you would not notice the time spent waiting for the ERTMS to boot-up because the driver would ordinarily have time for this to happen during cab set-up. And even then, there are other things that you need to do as part of the cab set-up which you can be getting on with while waiting for it, such as changing the lights, setting up the GSM-R/PIS/DAS, adjusting the seat and cab heat/vent to suit. Even during disruption ERTMS set-up is unlikely to add a noticeable delay to your departure. As such, focusing on it really is small beer.

How do you propose that we disentangle the value of the customer's time from operational efficiency? I've been puzzling about this ever since you bemoaned a train departing on time a few days back. On time departures help to ensure that paths are adhered meaning that, all other factors being equal, the train has the best chance of an on time arrival. This surely is the best possible outcome for both passengers and the railway. In the event of disruption, such as you describe, this becomes departing as soon as practically possible. Yesterday you conceded that 9 minutes seemed like a reasonable turnaround time given that the driver of the delayed inbound service was the one working the return leg, but now the 2 minutes that has been quoted as the boot-up time for ERTMS is problematic. I defer to my colleagues who have to use the system (thankfully I don't), but as I outlined above there will be other things that they need to do before being ready for departure. How much delay the ERTMS boot-up actually accounts for is likely to be somewhere south of the 2 minutes quoted.

 

[Shrop]

"How do you propose that we disentangle the value of the customer's time from operational efficiency?"

This is the crux of it! Customers used to be called Passengers, and their welfare used to be the most important aspect of railway operations.
Once upon a time rail staff would do whatever was necessary to ensure that their passengers were subject to minimum delay, sometimes with drivers running along platforms to get their train away more quickly. You don't often see that these days . There were sufficient staff to run trains without frequent risks that a late train would lead to another late train, then another etc. Staff weren't rostered so tightly that delays compounded throughout the day, with the emphasis being on blame and penalties.
Okay, maybe I come from a bygone era, but we're living in times where climate change is increasingly focusing on more carbon efficient transport, but passengers will never be attracted in great numbers to the present service where punctuality is such a lottery, and where connections barely exist except by luck.
The answer is simple - don't roster staff so tightly, have just one or two spare drivers available at pinch points, paid on standby rates. The greater reliability that would result, would eventually lead to more passengers, who would soon pay for the extra staff. It simply depends on whether the aproach of management, the press and politicians is a glass half full approach, or a glass half empty one. The former approach is that of forward thinkers, the latter is that of the excuse-makers.

 

[zwk500]

The answer is simple - don't roster staff so tightly, have just one or two spare drivers available at pinch points, paid on standby rates.

This is already done in some locations. But if you had 1 driver available at e.g. Crewe, Birmingham, Shrewsbury, and Chester I think you can see how it adds up very, very quickly for a driver that isn't required 90% of the time. There'd also be the small matter of having to recover crew scattered across the network back to their home depots by the end of their shift. So you'd potentially be saving disruption earlier in the day but have a greater proportionate effect at the end of the day by having to cancel trains when the service is already thinner. Staffing is also an issue because it takes a lot of time to train people to the required standard, something COVID has had a massive impact on because less staff can be trained at one time or some activities having to be stopped altogether while alternatives could be organised that allowed 2m separation.

There's also the issue that if they're paid standby rates when on standby they'd want full rates when they actually go out to cover gaps in the service, and at the end of the day the cost of the standby drivers will be passed on to the farepayer. How much extra are you willing to pay on your ticket to ensure it's reliability?

 

[The Planner]

This is the crux of it! Customers used to be called Passengers, and their welfare used to be the most important aspect of railway operations.
Once upon a time rail staff would do whatever was necessary to ensure that their passengers were subject to minimum delay, sometimes with drivers running along platforms to get their train away more quickly. You don't often see that these days . There were sufficient staff to run trains without frequent risks that a late train would lead to another late train, then another etc. Staff weren't rostered so tightly that delays compounded throughout the day, with the emphasis being on blame and penalties.
Okay, maybe I come from a bygone era, but we're living in times where climate change is increasingly focusing on more carbon efficient transport, but passengers will never be attracted in great numbers to the present service where punctuality is such a lottery, and where connections barely exist except by luck.
The answer is simple - don't roster staff so tightly, have just one or two spare drivers available at pinch points, paid on standby rates. The greater reliability that would result, would eventually lead to more passengers, who would soon pay for the extra staff. It simply depends on whether the aproach of management, the press and politicians is a glass half full approach, or a glass half empty one. The former approach is that of forward thinkers, the latter is that of the excuse-makers.

Those days are gone too, no one is going to pay for members of staff that arguably aren't being productive. It would be weighed up against the cost of delays etc vs the outlay. The issue is much wider, the network has a considerable amount of more traffic, whilst you may be trying to reduce a delay in one area you won't necessarily make it back up elsewhere. Customer friendly, probably not, but £££ is king.

 

[zwk500]

Customer friendly, probably not, but £££ is king.

To be honest, for the vast majority of customers, keeping the £ they have to pay as low as possible is the most customer-friendly thing you can do!

 

[DarloRich]

Okay, maybe I come from a bygone era,

Good you recognise that. Those days are gone and they aren't coming back. They cant, because the railway today is ( or perhaps was pre COVID) carrying so much more traffic than them olden days and must do so with as lower costs as possible.

 

[Falcon1200]

Once upon a time rail staff would do whatever was necessary to ensure that their passengers were subject to minimum delay, sometimes with drivers running along platforms to get their train away more quickly. You don't often see that these days . There were sufficient staff to run trains without frequent risks that a late train would lead to another late train, then another etc. Staff weren't rostered so tightly that delays compounded throughout the day, with the emphasis being on blame and penalties.

When exactly was this Golden Age of Railways ? I worked in a railway operational role from 1984 to 2016 and it certainly was not the case at any time during those years ! Regarding tight rostering, we had trains arriving at a terminus where the stock, Driver and Guard all had different next workings, so one late or cancelled arrival affected three return services - This was in the 1980s......

 

[wobman]

To be honest, for the vast majority of customers, keeping the £ they have to pay as low as possible is the most customer-friendly thing you can do!

There's many efficiencies that could be utilisesd on the railways and the staff know what to do but nobody asks them.
Some of the posts show this, having traincrew as standby is seen by managers as being inefficient, but the traincrew that see the industry day in day out realise its a valuable asset to have standby traincrew at busy depots.

Actually spending money in the correct places creates a more efficient industry, especially at times of disruption which happens more that people realise.

 

[wobman]

Good you recognise that. Those days are gone and they aren't coming back. They cant, because the railway today is ( or perhaps was pre COVID) carrying so much more traffic than them olden days and must do so with as lower costs as possible.

The railways are constantly evolving not always for the better unfortunately, having so many managers in the industry with no experience in the operational part of the jobs causes many issues.

 

[Shrop]

When exactly was this Golden Age of Railways ? I worked in a railway operational role from 1984 to 2016 and it certainly was not the case at any time during those years ! Regarding tight rostering, we had trains arriving at a terminus where the stock, Driver and Guard all had different next workings, so one late or cancelled arrival affected three return services - This was in the 1980s......

Was this tight rostering you mention, really as commonplace in the 1980s as it is now? Somehow I doubt it, after all society has been cost cutting for decades since then so I suspect it's more common now than it used to be, as part of this over-optimistic planning that often fails to allow for a lot of realities. I commuted to school during the early 1970s, when there was enough rolling stock and staff around that late trains were often substituted by additional services, but yes, I fully acknowledge that those days are gone.

But gone for ever? Maybe this shouldn't be the case, maybe we just need a Government with the courage to invest more heavily in rail travel, for both passengers and freight. Done properly this would need new railways as well as just new staff and rolling stock, and all planned a lot better than our misguided HS2 was. And funded by charging the costs to those who use our horribly over-congested roads.

Now there's a point for me to dispute, I hear you say, many drivers have no choice but to use the roads, so bear with me while I digress a little. Yes of course most drivers will find every excuse going to use their cars, but a great many of them really do have alternatives, they just don't want to use them. Let me start with a discussion I had with a colleague during my working life in transport. I asked her why she chose to drive 3 miles to work knowing the journey was likely to take 30-45 minutes, when it could be done in around 15 minutes on a pushbike. Her answer was that the longer it took, the better, because it was her refuge from work and children, so if it took an hour one morning, that was fabulous because she had a ready made excuse to arrive late for work.

The point is, gone are the days when longer journeys are generally seen as an inconvenience, some people see them as a bonus, and willingly join that congestion, preferring that more congestion is better, and completely disregarding any problems that their personal contribution to congestion causes to others. Or their extra pollution, or accident risk by adding to the frustration of others. If only more people in transport planning realised this, along with many other things that go unnoticed by our "experts".

But railways are different, shorter journey times are still, with good reason, seen as beneficial, and a Government with a proper understanding of road vs rail operations would be pushing to migrate a lot of passenger and freight journeys towards railways.

(Btw, I have a car and I enjoy driving, but I've always used railways, my bicycle and my feet whenever practical, as the thing I enjoy least about driving is congested roads and queuing traffic).