Southern put Evening Standard to right

[ModernRailways]

I'm not sure how running fewer trains would help with the cancellation statistics. These are not trains that are running late, these are trains that didn't run at all.

But those trains didn't run for a reason, surely? That reason may be there wasn't enough staff available. Earlier disruption due to a fatality, signalling problem, points failure etc. By running so many trains it's inevitable there will be cancellations when there is a problem because, as much as people wish, trains can't just magically teleport to their destination and then be on time. If you run less trains then there will still be delays but less cancellations because it's easier to get those trains to their destination.

For example, say there is an electrical fault at East Croydon (ECR) that lasts for 20 minutes, it's the middle of the peak with around 40 trains due to pass within those 20 minutes all heading to London Victoria. Those trains all have to stop whilst the problem is fixed. So you have all the trains behind that 20 also backed up, with them being 20 minutes behind schedule as they join the queue. Eventually the problem is fixed, and all the trains start running again but no trains get cancelled they just run 20-40 minutes late (likely longer because of the stop-start they would be doing between each signal), however the first of those trains reaches Victoria and eventually all the platforms are full meaning a lot of trains start getting clogged up in the station throat. Which in turn creates more delay. Eventually, trains start leaving Victoria and so platforms gradually become available for the already delayed services. If there were less trains there wouldn't be as much backlog during disruption and so services wouldn't be delayed by as long because there wouldn't be as many trains to 'process' and so ultimately less trains would be 'cancelled' because they wouldn't be starting short or running empty to another location. However, by running less trains overcrowding then becomes a problem and so arguably would create just as much delay because dwell times would significantly rise and passengers would be left behind.

So really the question to commuters should be, would you rather less services but busier services, or the same level of services with quieter services and a little disruption every once in a while? I know which the majority would choose, although they probably wouldn't realise the first option will still have delays just not as many trains would be delayed.

(This isn't aimed at you specifically Arctic Troll, most of it was just me rambling on about how running less trains would help, but also wouldn't)

 

[306024]

So really the question to commuters should be, would you rather less services but busier services, or the same level of services with quieter services and a little disruption every once in a while? I know which the majority would choose, although they probably wouldn't realise the first option will still have delays just not as many trains would be delayed.

Not sure how that is an option on lines where 12 car trains run full and standing on minimum headways. It's tough down south

 

[otomous]

First point - slack in the timetable? I wish. I can assure you that I rarely find ANY slack time in any of the schedules I am expected to keep to. Yesterday I left West Croydon on time. However not satisfied with that, twelve people decided to arrive late at North Dulwich and hold the doors open, thus giving me a 90 second delay. This was compounded by people at Peckham Rye squeezing into the front two coaches only. And then pouring out of only the front two at South Bermondsey. So I was late into London Bridge - and it had nothing to do with Southern. Thankfully I had my break at this point though had I been going straight back out again then the next train might have now left late too because I don't get any extra time to change ends and set up again.

Second point - less trains=better timekeeping. Yes. Yesterday I managed to get in and out of West Croydon on time (before late passengers intervened) because Overground wasn't running. So I wasn't first held up by an Overground going in and out of Peckham Rye or another one preventing me getting into the bay at West Croydon while it was allowed out first. Getting in and out of London Bridge on time is an even bigger challenge than it used to be as we have just 3 roads with lower overall speeds in and out now but are still pretty much running the full service.

Perhaps you haven't quite got the idea of how tricky it is running a 21st century frequency of increasingly long and busy trains on a Victorian railway, timetable dictated from outside, that hasn't had any serious infrastructure investment for decades, whilst having to employ new defensive driving techniques? It's a balancing act. You can have fewer trains which makes the service less attractive and the remaining trains probably more crowded. You can have slack in the timetable to allow for mishaps (which is then derided as window dressing) and this would also reduce the frequency as we already use more than the line's capacity in the peaks. You can have more trains without slack in the timetable but that makes it more difficult to keep to time (which is also derided but is the perfectly reasonable reason for Right Time not meaning Bang On Time).

 

[HarleyDavidson]

The one thing that I soon learned was to pace myself and not go flying up the mainline like a screaming banshee only to find YY - Y - Red and then have an irritating stop/start journey which is not only a right royal PITA to drive, but it makes passengers nervous too.

The way I found it out was via RTT and once I learned my passing times/point 2 point timings, it all became so much easier. Now I just plod along at 30-35 mph between Surbiton & Wombledon with a Cobham or Woking, because we have to follow the always late trains from "The loop" and if I go any faster I'll just be on the AWS reset button all of the time, that increases my SPAD risk and I'm sorry but I'm just not doing it...

2Pxx services outside of peak in maximum speed 80mph, unless I'm late. The reason? The timetable is so poor, you get a conflict with the 2Fxx on the down & 2Lxx on the up, so come to a stand. Pointless so keeping to 80mph (where permissible) gives a much smoother & linear journey, with minimal slowing down & stopping for signals & invariably gives you a RT journey without those many & highly irritating signal checks or stops.

 

[ModernRailways]

Not sure how that is an option on lines where 12 car trains run full and standing on minimum headways. It's tough down south

It would be an option it would just mean busier trains (to the point where people must wait for the next one, which doesn't really happen right now unless their is disruption) with passengers having to wait longer and ultimately moan more because they have to wait an 1 hour just to be able to board a train. It would also mean all trains would become peak trains because people who right now travel in the peak would have to spread out more.

It would never happen for various reasons, the obvious one being the railway wouldn't cope with all the people waiting. If you go to Victoria now during disruption in the peak and you look at the amount of people waiting it's ridiculous and just shows how many people are actually travelling. In fact if I remember there was one time they had to close the station because there was just too many people waiting, that was at 17:45 and there was a signalling problem just outside the station which brought all services (including SE) to a standstill.

 

[Clip]

"Not my fault guv" is waffle and excuses.

If the equipment is repeatedly fails then the buck should stop with the manager responsible for that equipment. Sadly, within Network Rail that isn't the case, as we see with the bonuses paid to the managers each and every year.

I'm not sure how running fewer trains would help with the cancellation statistics. These are not trains that are running late, these are trains that didn't run at all.

Hold on a second, you were bleating about southern in your last post and now its NR when it was pointed out that a lot of its not really Southerns fault.

Ahh I forgot any chance for a cheap shot across the bows from you and youll take it without even acknowledging that your post was wrong in the first place and youll ignore that when its brought to you r attention

 

[hassaanhc]

The one thing that I soon learned was to pace myself and not go flying up the mainline like a screaming banshee only to find YY - Y - Red and then have an irritating stop/start journey which is not only a right royal PITA to drive, but it makes passengers nervous too.

The way I found it out was via RTT and once I learned my passing times/point 2 point timings, it all became so much easier. Now I just plod along at 30-35 mph between Surbiton & Wombledon with a Cobham or Woking, because we have to follow the always late trains from "The loop" and if I go any faster I'll just be on the AWS reset button all of the time, that increases my SPAD risk and I'm sorry but I'm just not doing it...

2Pxx services outside of peak in maximum speed 80mph, unless I'm late. The reason? The timetable is so poor, you get a conflict with the 2Fxx on the down & 2Lxx on the up, so come to a stand. Pointless so keeping to 80mph (where permissible) gives a much smoother & linear journey, with minimal slowing down & stopping for signals & invariably gives you a RT journey without those many & highly irritating signal checks or stops.

That is an interesting thing you mentioned there.
Since March I've used non-stop 1923 Waterloo to Surbiton loads of times. Earlier on i used to find the drivers bombed it down the fast right after leaving Waterloo, but ended up slowing down to a right crawl and even stopping at times before Clapham Junction (the 1920 to Exeter & Bristol in front of it stops at CLJ). However these days they stop motoring just before Vauxhall and keep that speed until after CLJ. This means they don't have to slow down as much and also closer to CLJ, around where the A380 advert is rather than much before that.
Makes sense when you think about it

 

[andy19_64]

Southern's response is pathetic. 5% of trains being cancelled is a disgraceful figure and one they should be ashamed of, rather than trying to spin it as "only 5%" before rattling off a list of excuses. The TSSA and the Standard are right to pull them up on it, if I had a 5% failure rate in my job I'd be sacked.

As for the "open letter from Dave Ward", again it's more waffle and excuses about how his ineptitude is everyone else's fault. That letter should be one sentence long: "I'm sorry I'm not doing my job properly".

OK. so you would get the sack, what about the people who work in control for the TOC's. As i said in one of my posts on page 1 that NR set a timed target to have all trains running RTR. So what would happen to these people if they just turned around and said Bo!!!!ks i will get the trains back on time when i am ready???. CORRECT ARTIC TROLL they would get the sack because they have just cost the company £1000's in fines.

Perhaps you should get a job on the railway working for a TOC in control and we could see what a mess you make of the system after an incident and see how many other TOC's that use the line start ranting at you because you have delayed their trains as well.

And no i do not work in control.

 

[nw1]

Well someone has suggested further up the thread that Southern should run less trains. Seems like a good idea, lets cut 20% of the trains out the timetable, lets see how over crowding goes?

Personally I have a great deal of sympathy for Southern even if it is annoying that my train is always a few minutes late. However the converse is that if it was not for Southern my train probably wouldnt exist at all.

Certainly the number of trains that I have wanted to catch that have been cancelled is minimal, and of course it is entirely possible to travel on a "cancelled" train and arrive at your destination on time. This is because intervening stops have been missed to catch up time.

Less trains off peak might help in terms of off-peak delays and congestion (though the trains would need to be longer), though running less trains at the peak time would I suspect be a very bad idea indeed. Reducing frequencies to 1990s levels but increasing train length might work on some routes where the typical train is well below the platform length (XC springs to mind) but again, only away from peak times. But if most delays are at the peak anyway, there might not be a lot of point...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hold on a second, you were bleating about southern in your last post and now its NR when it was pointed out that a lot of its not really Southerns fault.

I equally criticised Southern and Network Rail in the first post, specifically referring to the silly little "open letter" full of waffle.

Both parties are equally to blame when trains get cancelled. Not all cancellations will be because the signals have gone bump, there will be plenty of cancellations or short-forms because of broken down trains or a lack of train crew too.

As i said in one of my posts on page 1 that NR set a timed target to have all trains running RTR. So what would happen to these people if they just turned around and said Bo!!!!ks i will get the trains back on time when i am ready???. CORRECT ARTIC TROLL they would get the sack because they have just cost the company £1000's in fines.

A train should not be counted as running "right time" if it misses out half the stops on it's planned schedule, if it terminates short or starts short. And train companies should be fined whenever a train is cancelled or short-formed due to their mismanagement, such as when they have insufficient train crew or when their trains are broken.

 

[NSEFAN]

train companies should be fined whenever a train is cancelled or short-formed due to their mismanagement, such as when they have insufficient train crew or when their trains are broken.

Are they not already penalised for these things? I thought they were.

One solution to service recovery would be a few extra units and staff located around the network who can step in when things fall apart. This would cost more money though, and the DfT have made it clear that they want the industry to make savings...

 

[EM2]

A train should not be counted as running "right time" if it misses out half the stops on it's planned schedule, if it terminates short or starts short.

They aren't. They are classed as cancellations.

And train companies should be fined whenever a train is cancelled or short-formed due to their mismanagement, such as when they have insufficient train crew or when their trains are broken.

Insufficient crew could be for any number of reasons. Bout of sickness spread through the depot? Bad weather meaning crew can't get to work?
A broken train isn't necessarily bad maintenance either. Never had an item break or stop working, with no warning? Fan belt snapped even though you've followed the service intervals? Duff battery? Headlight bulb blown and you don't have a spare?

 

[Tetchytyke]

They aren't. They are classed as cancellations.

So where do the fines that andy19_64 refers to come in then? It should not be cheaper for a TOC to bin a train than run it.

 

[EM2]

If the equipment is repeatedly fails then the buck should stop with the manager responsible for that equipment. Sadly, within Network Rail that isn't the case, as we see with the bonuses paid to the managers each and every year.

But if you look at the bonuses they ACTUALLY received, they didn't hit targets for train performance, so didn't get bonuses for it.
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...s-reduced-bonuses-for-its-directors-1d8b.aspx

The remuneration committee felt that while performance was good in most areas, truly exceptional performance had not been achieved in financial efficiency and asset stewardship, and our train performance targets were not met. But we also needed to recognise the significant successes that had been delivered in the business during the year.

 

[hassaanhc]

So where do the fines that andy19_64 refers to come in then? It should not be cheaper for a TOC to bin a train than run it.

Sometimes you need to "bin" a train as it is so late it needs running fast or terminating short in order to get it back to right time.

 

[muz379]

So where do the fines that andy19_64 refers to come in then? It should not be cheaper for a TOC to bin a train than run it.

Is it not the scheme of fines itself that makes it cheaper for a TOC to cancel a service short or make it run express missing loads of stops .


Trying to run trains to the timetable straight after disruption is only going to cause loads more delays and disruption spread out over a longer period of time . And potentially cost the TOC more in the long run for more cancellations , and delays to other TOCS services .

Unfortunately after disruption (caused for whatever reason) trains will be cancelled , short formed and run express to try and recover the service .

I see it quite often up in Northern land where a Southpor/Liverpool to Manchester airport service will be cancelled short at Piccadilly so that it can run back towards Southport/Liverpool on time so the crew or unit can be in place to run a service later on .
To run the service to the airport is then going to cause that service to run out of the airport late and then potentially coming into slade lane junction it might hold up another TOC's service leading to even more fines . So your unit and train crew are displaced and you have held up another TOC , VS you have had to pay the fine for cancelling a service to the airport . I know which one I and anyone else in that sitaution at control would choose

The 5% cancellation statistic does sound shocking at first , until you realize that is also services that skip stops , are part cancelled or run more than 30 mins late . Suddenly just as the threshold for delay is as some might say generous , the threshold for cancelled is not as it might at first sound .