PPM Going to Real Time in Future

[87015]

Various reasons.

Firstly train times are monitored in whole minutes, as that is how TRUST works at the moment, so a train recorded (simplifying this but for simplicity's sake let's just say recorded) as departing one second early is going to be recorded as one minute early. It is impossible to tell the difference between a service departing 60 seconds early and one departing 1 second early from a regulatory point of view.

Then due to the dispatch process taking some time, it is widely recognised that in order to allow services to depart promptly at the time stated, dispatch has to start a certain amount of time before that. By its very nature, the process may take slightly longer or slightly shorter from train to train. Once the process is complete, there is often no reason for the train to wait in the platform as reopening the doors will certainly delay departure.

There are other reasons, but for reasons of practicality it is tolerated that trains depart up to one minute before advertised time.

For obvious reasons, no TOC insist that trains aim to depart one minute before departure time, and most will advise staff to wait for 0 seconds to arrive before taking power, even if dispatch process were complete a few seconds before, however allowing services to depart as soon as dispatch process is complete has its advantages especially on busier routes.

Arriving last minute for your train is therefore never a good idea.

"No TOC" is nonsense. Some are measured on real time doors close measure at each station - no trust reports - and more than 30 secs early is an equivalent PPM failure with all the penalties that entails. Just because your lot can't be bothered to manage it properly don't slag everyone else off...

 

[bb21]

"No TOC" is nonsense. Some are measured on real time doors close measure at each station - no trust reports - and more than 30 secs early is an equivalent PPM failure with all the penalties that entails. Just because your lot can't be bothered to manage it properly don't slag everyone else off...

Huh? Who is slagging whom off? Have I slagged your TOC/route off? If so can you point out how I did it? It may help me avoid doing the same thing again.

"No TOC insist that trains aim to depart one minute before departure time" is correct AFAIK. Why would any TOC even want to contemplate doing the opposite?

Are you wanting to tell me that there were some developments I was unaware of or may have missed in terms of punctuality monitoring? In that case why not explain it? I am only trying to explain things from what I know, and general national standards that I am aware of. I am not an encyclopedia and certainly not immune from missing things, especially developments away from TOCs in my area.

 

[87015]

That remains the case.

I don't doubt that sometimes less than optimal decisions are taken. It is however not worth anyone putting a late-running train behind one running on time simply because it is late. Further delays may have implications for PNBs, subsequent crew workings, crew hours, overcrowding, subsequent services, knock-ons to trains behind, etc. PPM is not the only scorecard measure on anyone's list. Making a service already late run even later regulating for a right time service may be better for PPM, but it may then cause issues for CaSL, which is also a scorecard measure, so it never is that black and white and I doubt any controller would simply do that regardless of circumstances.

More absolute jokes, regulating for PPM remains the gold standard across the board regardless of trains that are late day in,day out, and still what should be a RT start gets checked for it becuase that TOC won't agree to amend the policy to right time, right path or whatever this week's performance slogan is!

 

[noddingdonkey]

What price reductions?

If you are referring to Passenger's Charter measurements, they will carry on as they are until a new system is brought in, or until they are all replaced by Delay Repay or similar, in the same way that they continued when PPM were brought in.

Yes, those reductions. Surely when this new system comes in it would be ridiculous for those not to be calculated based on the exact ticket a passenger holds, not the route as a whole?

 

[bb21]

More absolute jokes, regulating for PPM remains the gold standard across the board regardless of trains that are late day in,day out, and still what should be a RT start gets checked for it becuase that TOC won't agree to amend the policy to right time, right path or whatever this week's performance slogan is!

I think you will find that all this shows is there are varying policies and practice across the country. What my route does in practice will not apply across board, and neither will what happens on your route. The core aim is and remains the minimisation of overall delay, but how much different routes/TOCs pull towards that varies due to a variety of factors. Overall delay cannot be left unchecked for very obvious reasons.

Service regulation is never solely about PPM, even if some routes place more emphasis on them. So called "regulating for PPM" also does not mean other factors should be ignored simply for the sake of PPM. It is a very simplistic view otherwise. If one can make a decision that maximises PPM with no other adverse impact (which is what "regulating for PPM" is really about, priority, but not exclusivity) then of course that would be best, but it is not always possible. Some routes are potentially in a more difficult position due to the attitude of some TOCs, granted. There certainly exist personnel in the industry who have very simplistic views in terms of what they should aim for, are measured on, and how best to achieve that, on both the NR and TOC side, but at senior levels they would certainly be looking at the whole package of measures, with PPM only a fairly prominent example. If you are regulating a certain decision due to a route customer's insistence and refusal to budge, you are also not regulating simply for PPM, but partly (or mostly) carrying out an instruction whatever the motive may be behind it, and it can often be with other priorities in mind, depending on whether the customer is desperate to avoid further deterioration of any particular measure they are already in trouble for, as the decision may or may not be deemed out of your hands depending on what the customer is like. Inter-TOC politics is also not about PPM, as one TOC insisting on its trains running in the correct path regardless may have a detrimental effect on overall PPM, even if it improves their own.

So if you were angry that I was being overly general about the whole situation, I hope I have now clarified further. As I said, not black and white, on either side.

 

[bb21]

Yes, those reductions. Surely when this new system comes in it would be ridiculous for those not to be calculated based on the exact ticket a passenger holds, not the route as a whole?

I think you may be a little confused. The price of any performance-related price reduction or compensation has always been calculated based on the price of the ticket held. What triggers these discounts/compensation is the thing that varies depending on the compensation scheme operated. In Delay Repay, it is the actual journey the customer made. In Passenger's Charter, it is the overall level of performance.

Whether a discount/compensation is payable depends on the compensation scheme, not the performance metrics reported on.

 

[infobleep]

You can already request data for specific trains from the TOCs. You just need to be specific with your request, ie. not "connection performance at Richmond between SWT and NLL services" or such like. Something along the lines of "punctuality record of the 0825 from Waterloo on arrival at Richmond over the last 12 months" would be perfectly fine.

True but I wasn't sure one could do end to end. So what are the chances of reaching z by x time when it includes a change at y. Rathe than looking up t to y and then figuring out if the average y time gives you time to reach the train to Z. It requires one to look up two sets of trains

It maybe that that's good enough vers cost and time of implementing such a thing.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[infobleep]

Various reasons.

Firstly train times are monitored in whole minutes, as that is how TRUST works at the moment, so a train recorded (simplifying this but for simplicity's sake let's just say recorded) as departing one second early is going to be recorded as one minute early. It is impossible to tell the difference between a service departing 60 seconds early and one departing 1 second early from a regulatory point of view.

Then due to the dispatch process taking some time, it is widely recognised that in order to allow services to depart promptly at the time stated, dispatch has to start a certain amount of time before that. By its very nature, the process may take slightly longer or slightly shorter from train to train. Once the process is complete, there is often no reason for the train to wait in the platform as reopening the doors will certainly delay departure.

There are other reasons, but for reasons of practicality it is tolerated that trains depart up to one minute before advertised time.

For obvious reasons, no TOC insist that trains aim to depart one minute before departure time, and most will advise staff to wait for 0 seconds to arrive before taking power, even if dispatch process were complete a few seconds before, however allowing services to depart as soon as dispatch process is complete has its advantages especially on busier routes.

Arriving last minute for your train is therefore never a good idea.

Plenty of trains depart up to 15 seconds prior to their departure time, especially if it's a terminal station they are starting from. It's only 15 seconds or so and they do advise the doors will close 30 seconds in advance. Thus I'm not saying it's wrong. Just stating it as a fact.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[bb21]

Plenty of trains depart up to 15 seconds prior to their departure time, especially if it's a terminal station they are starting from. It's only 15 seconds or so and they do advise the doors will close 30 seconds in advance. Thus I'm not saying it's wrong. Just stating it as a fact.

Yes, of course it happens, as I already mentioned, especially at busier places.

 

[infobleep]

That remains the case.

I don't doubt that sometimes less than optimal decisions are taken. It is however not worth anyone putting a late-running train behind one running on time simply because it is late. Further delays may have implications for PNBs, subsequent crew workings, crew hours, overcrowding, subsequent services, knock-ons to trains behind, etc. PPM is not the only scorecard measure on anyone's list. Making a service already late run even later regulating for a right time service may be better for PPM, but it may then cause issues for CaSL, which is also a scorecard measure, so it never is that black and white and I doubt any controller would simply do that regardless of circumstances.

Often if the 14 or 44 minutes pasted 17; 18 or 19 from Surbtion toward Woking are late, the 18 or 48 past the hour will be held, even if that is on time. I assume this is due to the fact their is padding between West Byfleet and Woking and delaying the 14 or 44 further will cause issues with the faster trains that catch up the 18 or 48 past. So I can see why some trains might be held to allow late running trains to go first.

Working out if your train will be held is of course is an educated guessing game, as occasionally the 18 or 48 is sent first.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[urbophile]

Just about to pick up daughter who has been delayed for an hour because of the first train missing the connection. So I know how infuriating lateness can be.

But let's have a sense of proportion. If an intercity train is more than ten minutes late on a two-hour journey it is annoying, but hardly [a] a frequent occurrence or, massively inconvenient (except in the case of missed connections like the above.) But flights that take a similar time are often much later arriving than that: airline schedules are only ever a rough guide to what might happen. If you take to the roads, it is impossible to give an exact time of arrival even if the traffic is running smoothly: the other week I was held up for over an hour because of a motorway crash.

 

[bb21]

Officially or otherwise, it definitely happens at the south end of the ECML; simple reality is I've been on the bad end of this too many times in recent years. Turn up at the station and see planned service running about 6 or 7 minutes late, and 9 times out of 10 the train is guaranteed to get held everywhere whilst other trains sail past. It's so utterly frustrating.

Yes I give you that there are occasions when it doesn't happen, perhaps if the train has a quick turnround booked, but as I say 9 times out of 10 it does. I have visions of some local manager instructing signallers to work this way so as to maximise the PPM figures, perhaps I'm being cynical, but I've seen this sort of thing just that little bit too much!

Not knowing further details it is impossible for me to comment, but suffice to say that there are some notable examples I am aware of which not only drive me, but plenty of people in senior positions, crackers. Let's leave it at that. It may or may not be relevant to your quoted example.

I suspect saying any more on the subject may lead to me saying things I would regret.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think the more fascinating thing out of this isn't the 40% of trains more than one minute late, its the statistic that 35% of trains are more than one minute early.

 

[The Planner]

Again, you need to remember how TRUST works, it will round down from 59 seconds to the minute so at train 2 minutes late/early could only be 61 seconds late or early.

 

[Moonshot]

Just looking at some of the posts on this thread and I get the impression that a number of forumites expect every single train service in the UK to arrive exactly to the second at its destination.

Not going to happen.

 

[njamescouk]

same as iy was pre privatisation then. except they weren't punished for holding trains in those days.

 

[Moonshot]

same as iy was pre privatisation then. except they weren't punished for holding trains in those days.

Penalties for delays incentivise performance.....a carrot and stick approach. Having said that. a bridge strike or fallen tree on the line doesnt recognise that no matter who is running the railway.

 

[FenMan]

I would have thought that if the long term aim of the industry is to improve train service frequency all over the UK, connection times become less of an issue ? What percentage of daily journeys made on the UK network actually involve a connection ?

An average percentage for the network would be meaningless and unhelpful.

However, let's use Reading as an example. These are the ORR usage stats for 2015/16:-

Entries & exits: 16,755,984
Interchanges: 3,970,335

So, approx. 19% of all passengers using Reading have a valid interest in whether the TOCs that run trains through Reading, GWR and XC, are running these services sufficiently on or near time to enable booked connections (minimum 7 minutes) to be made.

As my home station is on the North Downs Line, I'm also very interested in the TOCs' on-time performance at Wokingham, Farnborough North (for Farnborough Main), North Camp (for Ash Vale), Guildford, Redhill, Gatwick Airport and, to a lesser extent, Dorking Deepdene. Most of my journeys involve changing at Reading or at one of the stations listed above, so measuring performance against booked connections is pretty relevant to me.

 

[LAX54]

Train drivers have a protocol to follow when reporting in persons hit by train which aids the decison making process.

How would you get the " dignity team " to an incident any quicker?

How would you get a relief driver to the incident any quicker?

Many places do not have CCTV, train cameras can only be downloaded at the depot, unless staff coming to site bring the stuff with them.

If its deemed suspicious, then it becomes a SOCO incident too

Train may have been disabled by the incident

and as stated it may take sometime for a fresh driver to be brought to site etc

 

[Olaf]

The transparency is welcome and commendable, but it very much depends what the rail industry understands as with regard to scope; if all relevant data about the operations is exposed at all levels then it give rise to the opportunity for third-parties to gather the evidence to identify the root causes of delays and non-performance - then that would be a step forward.

 

[The Ham]

I would have thought that if the long term aim of the industry is to improve train service frequency all over the UK, connection times become less of an issue ? What percentage of daily journeys made on the UK network actually involve a connection ?

Numbers of connections are hard to define, there are lots of journeys that are clear cut i.e. Basingstoke to Guildford in that there are no direct trains, but what about Basingstoke to Surbiton? As there are direct trains, but a change could get you there on less time.

Even less clear cut is trains where there is a direct route option, but there are valid routes which require a change. For instance Guildford to Farnborough is valid direct but it's also valid via Woking. During the day it would be quicker to go via Woking given that Farnborough North had 1tph whilst Woking to Farnborough is 3tph and Guildford to Woking is 4tph.

I would suggest that it is probably quite a significant number of passengers who would rely on a connection at least once a month and amongst commuters it is possiblely around 10%. Yes there's lots who go to London direct from their local stations but I am aware of several others who need to change trains to get where they are going