Right Time punctuality

[YorkshireBear]

A very interesting opening to this months Modern Railways, in which the consequences of Minister's and the Daily Mail's requests that punctuality be measured at right time rather than the current system, are explored. Chris Gibb refers to a time when an old lady was trying to run for a train and it left with her 20m away, because the train had to leave on time. IS this something we want to aspire to? Are we proud of this? What if this was our mother?

Which begs a good question, customers want trains bang on time, they also want it to wait if they are running 30 seconds late and are running down platform. So which is more important. With examples given of branch line trains from Manningtree which used to wait up to 5 mins but no longer do due to the new wishes of ministers. This has now been revered due to local pressure groups.

With the finishing part saying, 'Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it'

I have never seen this discussed in particularly detail on this forum so i just wondered what are other peoples thoughts on this situation?

 

[Tomnick]

As long as the needs of those already on the train, especially where they're the majority, are considered, I think it'd be sensible to allow a little flexibility with connections. It's probably not practical in most cases to hold a (broadly speaking) 'main line' train for a late running 'branch' train (because of the knock-on effects), but when it's the main-liner that's late, I don't see the problem with holding the branch train for a minute or three as long as it's not going to subsequently miss its path somewhere (or delay something else) as a result, and connections (including bus connections*) further along the branch aren't affected.

It's really not practical at the moment though, unless someone high-up agrees that it's worth taking the delay minute hit. Even if the 'branch' train is booked to sit a mile outside the station for a minute or two (or will do so as a result of the late-runner) and can thus quickly return to right time, it'll be recorded as a late start and delay minutes will be thrown around - no matter how well you argue with the TDAs!

* Bus connections - in the ideal world, they'd all be properly co-ordinated so that they too wait if the incoming train is slightly delayed. Until that happens (!), even a slight delay to the branch train might result in folk missing their subsequent conections.

 

[RPM]

I read an article on the same sublect in an internal industry publiction yesterday and Chris Gibb made another point about right time punctuality: will it lead to a drop in safety standards? The concern is that if we all become obsessed with punctuality and undue pressure it put upon front line staff from above then there will be a tendancy to cut corners. We might see a rise in incidents like the recent Liverpool tragedy or an increase in SPADs.

 

[TDK]

A very interesting opening to this months Modern Railways, in which the consequences of Minister's and the Daily Mail's requests that punctuality be measured at right time rather than the current system, are explored. Chris Gibb refers to a time when an old lady was trying to run for a train and it left with her 20m away, because the train had to leave on time. IS this something we want to aspire to? Are we proud of this? What if this was our mother?

Which begs a good question, customers want trains bang on time, they also want it to wait if they are running 30 seconds late and are running down platform. So which is more important. With examples given of branch line trains from Manningtree which used to wait up to 5 mins but no longer do due to the new wishes of ministers. This has now been revered due to local pressure groups.

With the finishing part saying, 'Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it'

I have never seen this discussed in particularly detail on this forum so i just wondered what are other peoples thoughts on this situation?

If a train is due to depart at a given time it should. If it was my mother running for the train I would be surprised as she will be there with plenty of time to spare. It is down to money as a delay costs the train company money in fines if it is late, a train 3 minutes late could in fact cause huge delays in the region of hundreds of minutes as it travel on it's path. At £70 a minute is it financially worth waiting for someone who has spent probably £5 on a ticket?

I am at my train cab in time so as far as I am concerned so shold any passengers who want that train - OK sometimes it is out of the passengers control such as late connection, traffic etc however the amont of times I see someone running for a train and miss it by 20 seconds then to complain it didn't wait for them is their error and not that of the train company.

 

[D1009]

I read an article on the same sublect in an internal industry publication yesterday and Chris Gibb made another point about right time punctuality: will it lead to a drop in safety standards? The concern is that if we all become obsessed with punctuality and undue pressure it put upon front line staff from above then there will be a tendancy to cut corners. We might see a rise in incidents like the recent Liverpool tragedy or an increase in SPADs.

I think the railway is generally obsessed with punctuality as much as it can be. Much has been made of the performance regime and how much a delay minute costs either the TOC or Network Rail. What you don't generally hear is that no money actually changes hands unless the train concerned misses PPM, so all other things being equal, holding a connection for a minute or two doesn't cost anything. It's just that virtually all railway managers involved in service delivery have a budget of delay minutes, and their performance is judged on how well they have done against "target", and this applies to all delay minutes, not just the ones that cost anything. I heard one TOC recently got into financial difficulty because they budgeted on the basis of a certain amount coming in from Network Rail under the performance regime, but in the event the money was not forthcoming as NR had dramatically improved its performance! I believe it has already become too much of an obsession.

 

[Gareth]

A very interesting opening to this months Modern Railways, in which the consequences of Minister's and the Daily Mail's requests that punctuality be measured at right time rather than the current system, are explored. Chris Gibb refers to a time when an old lady was trying to run for a train and it left with her 20m away, because the train had to leave on time. IS this something we want to aspire to? Are we proud of this? What if this was our mother?

I don't think just because it was on old lady, it's an especially terrible thing. If she was late, then it's technically her fault regardless of her being an old lady. If train can afford some flexibility (and it will depend on the service and how much slack there is on the timetable) then I'd say "why not?" but one issue with accommodating late stragglers is that once they've gotten on, another one can suddenly turn up and then another one...

 

[Oswyntail]

The important part of punctuality is not when a train departs, so long as it is not early, but when it arrives, not only at its final destination, but also at the pathing points en route. It should not be beyond the wit of computer to be able to build in flexibility so that the potential for delaying departure is there at connection stations. If this meant longer journey times, then, imho, the travelling public would readily accept that. The other side of the coin should be that "right time" punctuality is measured only by arrival, but at all stops. And there should be a means of differentiating between a train that starts, say, ten minutes late but gets less late at each subsequent stop, and one that does not make up time, or loses more.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Sorry what i said there was a quote from the article rather than me asking questions.
I simply put it up for discussion which it has attracted.

But i think there is a balance, yes the danger is you get a constant stream of late people so that is the danger, but i think 20s depending on judgement won't affect the world too much.

Of course 20s at each station on a stopping service soon adds up.
Like i say i think theres a balance but i dont know where it is.

 

[Mojo]

A bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss when it came to using expertise over arranging replacement transport during extremely severe disruption either. I was caught up the other week when the wires were down on the East Coast south of Peterborough and having read the reports of the Driver of the affected train and the Mobile Operations Manager at the scene it was obvious to all that it would be at least 6 Hrs before the service would resume. Within 1 and a half Hrs replacement transport was arriving on the scene which I thought was quite good in comparison with horror stories I've read in the past. Seems to be good to move away from the "let's see if we can get things fixed first" (even when it's obvious that it'll take ages).

On a similar topic, will GSM-R enable controllers to speak directly to trains (i.e. broadcast over a loudspeaker in the cab)? Will staff be equipped with handheld devices? If so this could enable much more effective provision of information.

 

[Sidious]

I am of the opinion that trains should run at the right time.

In the late 80's under NSE there was the spread of the 'Ticket Barriers will close 30 seconds before departure' signs. With the demise of slam door stock notices appeared across the network that 'doors will close 30 seconds before departure', but recently East Coast has changed this to two minutes.

There should be some common sense too. But alas there is not, when it comes to connections departing on time or being held for a connecting service.

Mannintree is a good example - both the mainline and local train are operated by GA, and therefore it is in the companies interest to delay a connection.

For example should EMT hold at Newark Northgate for passengers to Lincoln to get off a late running EC service from London? In a world where operators are 'fined' £150 per minute late by NR, the incentive for EMT to hold a train say 10 minutes would be a potential £1500 fine. That's insane, but it's the world in which the railways operate. Instead they can run to time and allow EC to foot its own bill for 'delay repay' or organising onward travel, which doesn't increase the overall proposition for the travelling public.

 

[yorksrob]

I thought the article was very interesting and I agree that it's better to have a manageable time window during which trains can arrive, rather than having to slow down or even lose services just to fulfill some academic requirement for trains to be there on the dot. I believe the current tolerances aren't unreasonable and it's easy enough for people to build them into their travel plans by leaving adequate time for connections etc.

 

[bronzeonion]

Look after the seconds and the minutes will look after themselves.

Right time punctuality is a must for a railway imo, if you're going to keep waiting extra time for passengers who can't keep up with the train schedule the train will just end up being minutes late. UK rail punctuality is bad enough as it is!

As long as safety standards do not drop from the drivers, guards, signallers and train dispatchers I fully support improving punctuality on UK railways.

 

[Aictos]

I had a irate passenger one day who was upset he missed his train because he was late never mind the fact another train was leaving in 10 minutes :roll:

My view as I explained to this passenger was the train could leave on time and the 200 or so passengers down the line have a train on time or I could hold it for him and let them have a late train bearing in mind in the peaks you have trains every so often anyway and every minute really does count.

It's the responsibility of the passenger to ensure they're ready to board their services with plenty of time not turn up last minute, however common sense would apply for disruption.

 

[Tomnick]

There's a big difference between someone turning up late through their own doing (and I have little sympathy with their dummy-throwing) and a trainload of passengers who are likely to miss a connection because their incoming train is late - the latter, in my opinion, is the one that could do with being discussed at length!

 

[Be3G]

In the late 80's under NSE there was the spread of the 'Ticket Barriers will close 30 seconds before departure' signs. With the demise of slam door stock notices appeared across the network that 'doors will close 30 seconds before departure', but recently East Coast has changed this to two minutes.

This is something that annoys me a great deal. I used to commute on a journey that involved any two or three of four different TOCs (plus London Underground) in one trip. It was a right pain trying to remember who had a policy of closing doors/departing early, how early each particular TOC chose to allow their trains to leave, and at which stations. If you're on the tube and it's touch-and-go whether you'll make a National Rail connection, one minute can make all the difference between running for the train or staying on the tube.

It made me think there must be a much more simple system… one where… say… trains leave at the timetabled time! I think it's crazy that a train company can publish a departure time in its timetable, yet if you turn up at the station at the very beginning of that published one-minute window, the train has already left. A (published) timetable's purpose is to tell the public at what time they can expect to catch their train. If a train company wants to close its doors one minute early, then fine – but change the time in the timetable so it reads as being one minute earlier. That way, people who want to catch the train know when they can actually, y'know, catch it.

But at the same time, I wouldn't expect a train driver to delay the train no matter how fast someone is running or how old they are, except for when there've been delays in which case I think it makes sense to hold trains where practical (considering knock-on delays etc.). The ad-hoc nature of my commute – i.e. leaving at different times each day – meant I'd often just miss a half-hourly train. No-one's fault; it just happened. I certainly didn't blame anyone!

 

[asylumxl]

I think it makes sense to leave as per the timetable, but with an allowance of +/- x amount of minutes. The x should be modelled and determined by things such as frequency of services and impact on pathing etc.

 

[Aictos]

What is so hard to understand about the principle of train doors closing anything up to 20s prior to departure to allow a on time departure ie wheels moving at xx:00?

I've had ignorant passengers comment to themselves that their train left early, umm no it didn't as it actually left right time.

 

[Tomnick]

Twenty seconds isn't so bad, but I can understand folk getting upset if they weren't expecting the doors to shut two minutes ahead of time! I know many will disagree with what I'm saying, but it'd seem sensible for the PTT times to be adjusted to incorporate that two minutes at those stations where such a policy applies, rather than relying on them remembering what the posters state for a particular TOC.

Fair enough, anyone leaving it that fine to get to the station ought to realise they've got a good chance of missing it, but what about someone at the station in good time who decides they've got enough time to get something from a shop etc. on their way to the train? Seems a sensible measure to me, to allow the train to depart bang on time without upsetting folk who prefer to leave it a bit late!

 

[ryan125hst]

I am of the opinion that trains should run at the right time.

In the late 80's under NSE there was the spread of the 'Ticket Barriers will close 30 seconds before departure' signs. With the demise of slam door stock notices appeared across the network that 'doors will close 30 seconds before departure', but recently East Coast has changed this to two minutes.

There should be some common sense too. But alas there is not, when it comes to connections departing on time or being held for a connecting service.

Mannintree is a good example - both the mainline and local train are operated by GA, and therefore it is in the companies interest to delay a connection.

For example should EMT hold at Newark Northgate for passengers to Lincoln to get off a late running EC service from London? In a world where operators are 'fined' £150 per minute late by NR, the incentive for EMT to hold a train say 10 minutes would be a potential £1500 fine. That's insane, but it's the world in which the railways operate. Instead they can run to time and allow EC to foot its own bill for 'delay repay' or organising onward travel, which doesn't increase the overall proposition for the travelling public.

This is where the railways go wrong. Would this have happened in British Rail days? I doubt it, as there was only BR involved!

If they really do have to fine each other, why doesn't EMT then send EC a bill for the £1500 fine (if they delayed the Lincoln train by 10 minutes) as it was their fault for the delay. It might still be cheaper than EC refunding the passengers through delay replay if there were a lot of passengers onboard travelling on expensive tickets. It only takes 15 passengers with a £100 return ticket before the costs are the same. Any more than that, and it will actually be cheaper for East Coast.

Of course, the opposite will apply: If a Lincoln train was a few minutes late and the East Coast service waited (the hourly service to Newcasle for example), then EMT should pay the fine. Of course, pathing would become more of an issue given the fact that East Coast are on a mainline and, in the case of the service above, will need to get through Doncaster and York.

Do you think that the fine system needs to be altered? I certainly do! The railway should be run for the convenience of the passengers, not the companies who run it!

 

[dcsprior]

What is so hard to understand about the principle of train doors closing anything up to 20s prior to departure to allow a on time departure ie wheels moving at xx:00?

Because customers have a right to expect to get what is advertised, not for it to close 20 seconds (or in some cases, up to two minutes) earlier?

Having "small print" that says the actual time won't be what's advertised is akin to a shop displaying prices which exclude VAT: customers can work out what they really mean, but shouldn't have to.

 

[The Planner]

Cue the complaints of "why is my train always two minutes late leaving" you won't find a common ground with this.

 

[chuckles1066]

A very interesting opening to this months Modern Railways, in which the consequences of Minister's and the Daily Mail's requests that punctuality be measured at right time rather than the current system, are explored

Irrespective of the mode of transport, if something is due to arrive at 6.00p.m and it arrives at 6.01p.m then it's not punctual (by dictionary definition).

God bless the spin doctors of the last Labour administration.

 

[jizzer]

[PBecause customers have a right to expect to get what is advertised, not for it to close 20 seconds (or in some cases, up to two minutes) earlier?

To enable a train to depart on time (as advertised) the doors have to close 20/30 seconds before departure, 2 minutes is a bit ridiculous. If a train leaves 50 seconds late due to late running passengers it can make the difference to whether it makes its slot a a junction or not because it is quite easy to pick up more delay with unloading passengers, wheelchairs etc.
Why inconvenience 100's of passengers because a few people turn up late, probably the same sort of people who are always late for for other things as well, we all know someone who has a habit of being late a lot and the only way to teach them is not to wait for them so that next time they will give themselves a bit more time. The train leaves at XX00 and if you miss it because the doors shut 20 seconds before departure well that's tough.

 

[EM2]

Because customers have a right to expect to get what is advertised, not for it to close 20 seconds (or in some cases, up to two minutes) earlier?

What is advertised is the train departing at 21:45. So that it can do, the doors will close earlier, otherwise it won't be departing at 21:45, and the customer will not get what is advertised.

 

[Roverman]

Why do people think they can get to a station at 21:45 to catch a train leaving at 21:45?

This doesn't happen at the ferry port where the departure time and the time you need to be there at are very well signposted.

I think they need to stick with the system they have and just make damn sure that customers know that if they are late they will not be allowed to travel!

 

[455driver]

If a train is due to depart at a given time it should. If it was my mother running for the train I would be surprised as she will be there with plenty of time to spare.

So you or your mum are never late for anything?

You are good!

It is down to money as a delay costs the train company money in fines if it is late, a train 3 minutes late could in fact cause huge delays in the region of hundreds of minutes as it travel on it's path. At £70 a minute is it financially worth waiting for someone who has spent probably £5 on a ticket?

But is there any need for the TD money go round?
Are we in the business of running (empty) trains on time or running trains full of people a few minutes late?
If I am on a slow train and I can see a train I am supposed to connect with is nearly at the station I will either put the brake in and slow the train right down to ensure the connection gets in first or ask the guard if he is prepared to wait a minute or 2, most say yes as they know that we (the train crew) can make the time back before it affects any other train.

I am at my train cab in time so as far as I am concerned so should any passengers who want that train - OK sometimes it is out of the passengers control such as late connection, traffic etc however the amount of times I see someone running for a train and miss it by 20 seconds then to complain it didn't wait for them is their error and not that of the train company.

But these are the same people that complain when the train is 30 seconds late leaving (yes I have had somebody "having a go" because the train was 30 seconds late leaving Waterloo in the evening rush hour). :roll:

If I know I can make the time up then I will wait, but if there is another train a few minutes behind, tough, I am off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they really do have to fine each other, why doesn't EMT then send EC a bill for the £1500 fine (if they delayed the Lincoln train by 10 minutes) as it was their fault for the delay.

Only if EC asked EMT to hold the train, if EMT did it off their own back then the delay is theirs.

Do you think that the fine system needs to be altered? I certainly do! The railway should be run for the convenience of the passengers, not the companies who run it!

Absolutely!

 

[crosscity]

"What gets measured, gets done" is the modern way to manage things. This and the whole Key Performance Indicators and tick-box shtick is good at providing management information, but removes local discretion and the application of common sense.

I am a passenger and knowing that the railway management thinks it is important for a train to turn up and to run on time is a comfort to me. However if I make a journey that involves changing trains I expect some local discretion if there is late running. This is especially true if I am changing to a train on a line with a not very frequent service and doubly important if I am about to miss the last train of the day.

Last Sunday I followed the travails of a person on this forum who was on a train from Kings Cross which was booked to connect with the last train to Scarborough from York. The London train was half an hour late, and I was so pleased when he (or she) reported that the branch train was held to make the connection. This is what I would call a common-sense breaking of the rules. I know I would have felt completely let down by the railway to have arrived at York to find the last train left less than five minutes before I arrived. The railwaymen and women working on the ground for the three different organisations involved (NR, EC and FTPE) can pat themselves on the back for doing the right thing for the passenger.

 

[455driver]

"Last Sunday I followed the travails of a person on this forum who was on a train from Kings Cross which was booked to connect with the last train to Scarborough from York. The London train was half an hour late, and I was so pleased when he (or she) reported that the branch train was held to make the connection. This is what I would call a common-sense breaking of the rules. I know I would have felt completely let down by the railway to have arrived at York to find the last train left less than five minutes before I arrived. The railwaymen and women working on the ground for the three different organisations involved (NR, EC and FTPE) can pat themselves on the back for doing the right thing for the passenger.

That decision was nothing to do with the "railwaymen and women working on the ground" (unfortunately) and everything to do with "control".

 

[Aictos]

I've had passengers complain that their service was waiting time in the platform, if they read the timetable it clearly advertises that certain trains are pathed to wait time at this station for up to 8 minutes simply because it would otherwise clash with another service further up the line at the junction station.

I've had people complain during the leaf fall timetable that their train went earlier and still claim that it wasn't advertised, despite weeks of posters/announcements/CIS displays all advertising this.

End of the day, the departure time is the time you ought to be on the train not the time you expect to board it at.

Anyway, what most people seem to forget is a minute here and there soon adds up so before you know it, you've lost 10 minutes which then impacts on the next service the train/train crew works meaning that service will also be late.

As a example, a failed HST in Devon actually affected trains right across the country with various delays being caused - this is the train delay domino effect.

 

[upnorth71]

Interesting about the doors close 20 seconds before departure. In Japan, the doors close at exactly the scheduled/published departure time- for example, 10:00 on the dot, though the actual departure time maybe 10:00:15as noted on the employees timetable. There appears to be some additional leeway (20~30 seconds) permitted on departure time on intercity and suburban trains, as long as the delay stays under a minute. Over a minute requires an announced apology from trains staff. Of course, low frequency long distance trains will be held up for if a connecting train is late (within reasonable bounds).