Seemingly perverse signaling decisions

[Brent Goose]

Happened this morning but is not infrequent occurrence and I’m unclear what the logic might be.

05:50 Southampton to Brighton service (1N03) loses time on the run in to Barnham where the stopping train (2Y09) gets let out almost right infront of it the Arundel junction.

The opportunity to pass at Worthing is not taken and the ex Southampton to train continues to lose time such that it is terminated at Hove.

As a final insult the following service from Southampton can arrive technically early meaning lowest band of delay repay is deemed appropriate (although not today)

Thoughts appreciated

 

[Harpo]

You’d need to know everything the signaller knew and see everything the signaller could see first to understand what was happening.

 

[Spartacus]

Seems a bit swings and roundabouts to me. The Arundel Jn decision seems ok to me and if the decision to terminate 1N03 had already been taken then looping 2Y09 would only likely delay that by more than 1N03 was delayed after Worthing.

 

[BrummieBobby]

Unless you are in possession of all the operating arrangements, instructions from Control, local instructions, knowledge of other train movements in the area and any restrictions or degraded working in the area, it will probably not be possible to come to a conclusion.

The only person who has all of that is the signaller.

 

[Harpo]

Office Rule 1 - All discussions on regulation have to conclude within the same amount of time that the signaller had.

 

[Bald Rick]

Couple of things here.

1N03 didn’t lose time on the run to Barnham, it was 8 late off Southampton, and 8 Late at Barnham.

Secondly, 2Y09 wasn‘t let out ‘right in front’ at Arundel Jn, it was through Arundel Jn and away before 1N03 had arrived at Ford.

Had 2Y09 been held, it would have been at best 6-7 minutes late at Arundel Jn. That would have delayed the following 1H11 to Victoria by Hove, and that would have delayed 9T10 to the Thameslink core at Preston Park, and 1F11 to Victoria at Haywards Heath, and that would have delayed 1W11 express to Victoria and essentially ruined the tail end of the morning peak to Victoria and the Thameslink core.

So, correct decision!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I know the West Coastway performance has been under a lot of spotlights recently so I’d be surprised if there aren’t robust regulation policies in place. Avoiding creating reactionary delays into London-bound services would seem the logical priority, so I’d agree with Bald Rick.

 

[sh24]

Couple of things here.

1N03 didn’t lose time on the run to Barnham, it was 8 late off Southampton, and 8 Late at Barnham.

Secondly, 2Y09 wasn‘t let out ‘right in front’ at Arundel Jn, it was through Arundel Jn and away before 1N03 had arrived at Ford.

Had 2Y09 been held, it would have been at best 6-7 minutes late at Arundel Jn. That would have delayed the following 1H11 to Victoria by Hove, and that would have delayed 9T10 to the Thameslink core at Preston Park, and 1F11 to Victoria at Haywards Heath, and that would have delayed 1W11 express to Victoria and essentially ruined the tail end of the morning peak to Victoria and the Thameslink core.

So, correct decision!

A fascinating example of knock on delays avoided.

 

[Bald Rick]

A fascinating example of knock on delays avoided.

And also shows how busy our railway is, and therefore how important it is that everyone involved in day to day delivery does everything they can to keep trains running bang on time.

 

[Brent Goose]

Couple of things here.

1N03 didn’t lose time on the run to Barnham, it was 8 late off Southampton, and 8 Late at Barnham.

Secondly, 2Y09 wasn‘t let out ‘right in front’ at Arundel Jn, it was through Arundel Jn and away before 1N03 had arrived at Ford.

Had 2Y09 been held, it would have been at best 6-7 minutes late at Arundel Jn. That would have delayed the following 1H11 to Victoria by Hove, and that would have delayed 9T10 to the Thameslink core at Preston Park, and 1F11 to Victoria at Haywards Heath, and that would have delayed 1W11 express to Victoria and essentially ruined the tail end of the morning peak to Victoria and the Thameslink core.

So, correct decision!

Thank you for the detailed notes.

It felt that our progress was being impeded by the time we got to Angmering and the OBS seemed surprised we hadn't been allowed to pass at Worthing.

Indeed yesterday's service was late out of Southampton but it is more of a general happening which is not always a result of a delayed departure form the origin station. Seeing the delay before setting out I did have my concerns that we would end up being turfed out at Hove again and should have followed that and stayed in bed for another half hour.

If the intent of terminating at Hove was to try and recover the delay on the return journey I'm not sure how successful it was given how long it remained there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2025 ==

Unless you are in possession of all the operating arrangements, instructions from Control, local instructions, knowledge of other train movements in the area and any restrictions or degraded working in the area, it will probably not be possible to come to a conclusion.

The only person who has all of that is the signaller.

This is why I asked the question and am grateful for the detailed response provided here.

I used to commute out of London Liverpool Street to Needham market at it was at the time very rare for the Cambridge services to be let out at Ipswich such that they risked impeding the Norwich trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

It felt that our progress was being impeded by the time we got to Angmering

It was.

If the intent of terminating at Hove was to try and recover the delay on the return journey I'm not sure how successful it was given how long it remained there.

More successful than if it had been terminated at Brighton!

I used to commute out of London Liverpool Street to Needham market at it was at the time very rare for the Cambridge services to be let out at Ipswich such that they risked impeding the Norwich trains.

Which is also correct. Delaying the Cambridge service at Ipswich essentially only affects that service (which is relatively low value), whereas the Norwich is higher value and has several connections at Norwich that may need to be held.

 

[BrummieBobby]

This is why I asked the question and am grateful for the detailed response provided here.

I used to commute out of London Liverpool Street to Needham market at it was at the time very rare for the Cambridge services to be let out at Ipswich such that they risked impeding the Norwich trains.

As I say though, there are often several factors to consider when regulating, which only the signaller would be aware of.

 

[185]

I heard the whole issue of performance & how regulation is used is again being brought up by government in the forthcoming weeks, with several of the worst delay minute locations being identified. I'll post more when I see it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I heard the whole issue of performance & how regulation is used is again being brought up by government in the forthcoming weeks, with several of the worst delay minute locations being identified. I'll post more when I see it.

It’s not being ‘brought up‘ by Government. It’s all industry driven.

 

[Brent Goose]

More successful than if it had been terminated at Brighton!

Appreciate this is no doubt a gross over simplification but it sat there for about the same time than it takes to go from Hove to Brighton and back.

The underlying frustration is I take the train to work against my Employer’s expectation that I drive and this kind of delay doesn’t help.

 

[Bald Rick]

Appreciate this is no doubt a gross over simplification but it sat there for about the same time than it takes to go from Hove to Brighton and back.

The train was at Hove 14 minutes. Yes it could have got to Brighton and back in that time, but only if a relieving driver was taking it over. The time at home was almost certainly for staffing reasons, either a PNB for the driver, or awaiting the relieving driver from Brighton.

I don’t know the diagrams, but suspect it was a Barnham driver who had taken the empty stock from Barnham at 0440, to Southampton, turned it there (in 4 minutes) and was heading back east, so would have been due a PNB. Had that been at Brighton it may have delayed the return workimg even more, compounding the delay.

This is all speculation, but is to dhow that there are many factors in play.

 

[Horizon22]

And also shows how busy our railway is, and therefore how important it is that everyone involved in day to day delivery does everything they can to keep trains running bang on time.

At least they terminated a train at Hove to get the back working on time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2025 ==

Appreciate this is no doubt a gross over simplification but it sat there for about the same time than it takes to go from Hove to Brighton and back.

The underlying frustration is I take the train to work against my Employer’s expectation that I drive and this kind of delay doesn’t help.

It would do. You have to consider the Hove-Brighton time, the turnaround time at Brighton & the Brighton-Hove time as the overall saving made. There’s 3 elements to consider.

The fourth is any crew restrictions based on the move and how essential an intervention is on that basis and the fifth could be considered any clashes caused (platform occupancy / congestion etc.) by the alteration.

All these things are taken into consideration (and more!) by service controllers, and this is for a relatively minor issue of one train running late.

 

[Bald Rick]

At least they terminated a train at Hove to get the back working on time.

Not in this case. Left Hove 12L, didn‘t make up enough time to Pompey so terminated at Fratton to make a Rt start for its next working to Victoria.

 

[Horizon22]

Not in this case. Left Hove 12L, didn‘t make up enough time to Pompey so terminated at Fratton to make a Rt start for its next working to Victoria.

Oh well, crystal ball and all that!

But at least an attempt was made (twice!), something that in a recent thread for technically the same
TOC was evidently not occurring.

Ultimately the delay would go down to whatever caused the delay from Southampton in the first place of course which is still having an impact hours later.

 

[Brent Goose]

The departure boards originally said it was going to run fast to Worthing but just looking at RTT that didn’t happen.

Reference an earlier point the driver changed at Barnham

 

[Bald Rick]

Ultimately the delay would go down to whatever caused the delay from Southampton in the first place of course which is still having an impact hours later.

Overnight test train did something it shouldnt have. Got in the way! But yes control did their best.

It’s so frustrating when control take the right decisions in the circumstances presented to them, but then immediately the decision is taken the circumstances change and it turns into the 6/6 hindsight wrong decision.

 

[yorkie]

It appears to be more common that trains stoppers could be held, but aren't (whether rightly or wrongly depends on the circumstances), but today I experienced quite the opposite...

The 1041 Nottingham to Birmingham (BHM) departed Derby on time at 1110, but was held in the loop near Peartree, to allow a Newcastle to Reading Voyager (running 25 late) to overtake.

The Voyager departed at 1119, and was able to make up some time, arriving into BHM at 1150. However the Voyager caught up with the West Midlands Trains stopper from Worcester to Stratford-upon-Avon (the Voyager passed Tysley 5 mins after the WMT departed, and it's two track from there until the junction near Hatton where the trains diverge), so the Voyager went from 23 late to 31 late at Hatton. The Voyager did make up time later on, arriving Reading only 17 late.

The stopper to BHM was 11 late at Burton, but made up some time, and arrived only 7 late into BHM.

Had the stopper been allowed to proceed, the Voyager would have been a bit later into Birmingham, but would perhaps have arrived at the following stations at the same time, as it would have caught up the WMT stopper much closer to Hatton.

So, right decision or not? I can see arguments either way!

One thing I am not keen on is that the connection at Derby was missed; yes I know they want platform 3 back fro the next eastbound service, but there is perhaps an argument to say platform 4 could have been utilised.

But overall it is unusual to see a stopper held for so long to allow a fast to overtake, and I do wonder if it helps that both trains are operated by XC.

There isn't necessarily a definitively "right" or "wrong" answer to any of these decisions, but it's good to know that - at least sometimes - decisions are made for genuinely the right reasons, and it has to be accepted that whenever there are winners, there may have to be some losers, and the endgame is about maximising the former and minimising the latter.

It is also worth noting that the Voyager was very busy, and I would guess the stopper would have been much quieter, and that there is a very large turnover of passengers at Birmingham. The Voyager would probably have been about 7 mins later into Birmingham had it been stuck behind the stopper.

 

[Bald Rick]

But overall it is unusual to see a stopper held for so long to allow a fast to overtake, and I do wonder if it helps that both trains are operated by XC.

That would almost certainly have been at the request of XC control.

Possibly someone they knew on the train needed to scratch the loop on their atlas… (joke!)

 

[Horizon22]

Also on that particular point @yorkie anything going late into New Street is going to be almost totally guesswork as to what conflict it will then cause afterwards depending on which exact minute it arrives. You may get lucky, you may not.

 

[MCR247]

It appears to be more common that trains stoppers could be held, but aren't (whether rightly or wrongly depends on the circumstances), but today I experienced quite the opposite...

The 1041 Nottingham to Birmingham (BHM) departed Derby on time at 1110, but was held in the loop near Peartree, to allow a Newcastle to Reading Voyager (running 25 late) to overtake.

The Voyager departed at 1119, and was able to make up some time, arriving into BHM at 1150. However the Voyager caught up with the West Midlands Trains stopper from Worcester to Stratford-upon-Avon (the Voyager passed Tysley 5 mins after the WMT departed, and it's two track from there until the junction near Hatton where the trains diverge), so the Voyager went from 23 late to 31 late at Hatton. The Voyager did make up time later on, arriving Reading only 17 late.

The stopper to BHM was 11 late at Burton, but made up some time, and arrived only 7 late into BHM.

Had the stopper been allowed to proceed, the Voyager would have been a bit later into Birmingham, but would perhaps have arrived at the following stations at the same time, as it would have caught up the WMT stopper much closer to Hatton.

So, right decision or not? I can see arguments either way!

One thing I am not keen on is that the connection at Derby was missed; yes I know they want platform 3 back fro the next eastbound service, but there is perhaps an argument to say platform 4 could have been utilised.

But overall it is unusual to see a stopper held for so long to allow a fast to overtake, and I do wonder if it helps that both trains are operated by XC.

There isn't necessarily a definitively "right" or "wrong" answer to any of these decisions, but it's good to know that - at least sometimes - decisions are made for genuinely the right reasons, and it has to be accepted that whenever there are winners, there may have to be some losers, and the endgame is about maximising the former and minimising the latter.

It is also worth noting that the Voyager was very busy, and I would guess the stopper would have been much quieter, and that there is a very large turnover of passengers at Birmingham. The Voyager would probably have been about 7 mins later into Birmingham had it been stuck behind the stopper.

Yes this is quite normal on this route, especially since Derby was remodelled. You’ll get dispatched from Derby as normal but not make it too far before you stop and wait for the delayed voyager pass. When I was studying in Birmingham I’d always change onto a voyager at Derby if I could

 

[amahy]

I had a pretty perverse signalling decision at Manchester Victoria yesterday. They decided to route the late 17:31 Newcastle train all the way over to P6, instead of its booked P4, even though its usual platform was free at that time (another option was P3, also free at the time). The Newcastle train had a long dwell time in the station, due to the last minute platform alteration, and a wheelchair user wishing to board. This then caused a queue of trains going towards Rochdale behind it, resulting in two previously on time trains (17:36 Leeds and 17:42 Rochdale) to leave Victoria nearly 10 minutes late.

 

[Bald Rick]

I had a pretty perverse signalling decision at Manchester Victoria yesterday. They decided to route the late 17:31 Newcastle train all the way over to P6, instead of its booked P4, even though its usual platform was free at that time (another option was P3, also free at the time). The Newcastle train had a long dwell time in the station, due to the last minute platform alteration, and a wheelchair user wishing to board. This then caused a queue of trains going towards Rochdale behind it, resulting in two previously on time trains (17:36 Leeds and 17:42 Rochdale) to leave Victoria nearly 10 minutes late.

Axle counter failure just outside the station.