Train running empty from Maidenhead to Paddington

[puffing billy]

Can anyone please explain why the weekday 16:09 from Paddington which arrives at Maidenhead at 16:42:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20214/2017/07/05/advanced
has to run back empty to Paddington as the 16:46:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C29662/2017/07/05/advanced
I can understand the need to get coaches back to central London ASAP for the evening rush-hour(s) but it's very frustrating to stand on a full platform at Maidenhead waiting for a delayed "slow" train, while a "fast" train returns empty to London. I would estimate that about half the east-bound passengers stay on the stopping trains all the way to Paddington so an extra fast service in the schedule would be very useful. But I guess the railway schedules were never designed for the convenience of the paying customers?

 

[6Gman]

Can anyone please explain why the weekday 16:09 from Paddington which arrives at Maidenhead at 16:42:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20214/2017/07/05/advanced
has to run back empty to Paddington as the 16:46:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C29662/2017/07/05/advanced
I can understand the need to get coaches back to central London ASAP for the evening rush-hour(s) but it's very frustrating to stand on a full platform at Maidenhead waiting for a delayed "slow" train, while a "fast" train returns empty to London. I would estimate that about half the east-bound passengers stay on the stopping trains all the way to Paddington so an extra fast service in the schedule would be very useful. But I guess the railway schedules were never designed for the convenience of the paying customers?

Actually, they usually are.

Can't answer the detailed question re Maidenhead, but I suspect it's that running ECS gets it there quicker than running in service.

 

[Bungle965]

Can anyone please explain why the weekday 16:09 from Paddington which arrives at Maidenhead at 16:42:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20214/2017/07/05/advanced
has to run back empty to Paddington as the 16:46:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C29662/2017/07/05/advanced
I can understand the need to get coaches back to central London ASAP for the evening rush-hour(s) but it's very frustrating to stand on a full platform at Maidenhead waiting for a delayed "slow" train, while a "fast" train returns empty to London. I would estimate that about half the east-bound passengers stay on the stopping trains all the way to Paddington so an extra fast service in the schedule would be very useful. But I guess the railway schedules were never designed for the convenience of the paying customers?

I suspect it is so they can get back to London in time for the evening rush.
Sam

 

[Ianno87]

It appears to get looped at Old Oak Common Reception Line whilst it waits for the right path to drop into Padders, which may not be cleared for passenger trains.

 

[puffing billy]

Thank-you for the explanation.

"But I guess the railway schedules were never designed for the convenience of the paying customers?"

I rest my case M'Lud.

 

[Lrd]

Thank-you for the explanation.

"But I guess the railway schedules were never designed for the convenience of the paying customers?"

I rest my case M'Lud.

But if the majority of fare paying passengers are wanting to leave London in the evening peak, then getting the train back as quickly as possible will be more convenient for those passengers.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thank-you for the explanation.

"But I guess the railway schedules were never designed for the convenience of every single paying customer?"

I rest my case M'Lud.

I have corrected your comment for you. Which would make you indeed correct as it has to suit the majority, and the majority want to leave London in the evening.

 

[dk1]

It's far better for the TOC to run it as ECS. Can be put in sidings if required or overtaken enroute. Also should the previous working from Paddington be cancelled you suffer one PPM failure not two.

 

[30907]

In addition, the "fast" train is booked to take the same time as the "slow" train, so there is no advantage in speed.

ISTR this train is a (temporary?) spinoff from the GW electrification saga. There is little point in introducing a new train that is likely to disappear soon.

 

[bb21]

It's far better for the TOC to run it as ECS. Can be put in sidings if required or overtaken enroute. Also should the previous working from Paddington be cancelled you suffer one PPM failure not two.

I never understand this PPM argument because it makes no sense. It is only a myth.

The overwhelming majority of the time the railways operate smoothly, so that would be two PPM successes instead of one. Not doing that in case an extra PPM failure is suffered is a load of hot air.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Can anyone please explain why the weekday 16:09 from Paddington which arrives at Maidenhead at 16:42:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20214/2017/07/05/advanced
has to run back empty to Paddington as the 16:46:

That train or one slightly later used to be the through to Bourne End to enable doubling up for a half hourly service on the branch to Bourne End and Marlow. Presumably there's now an ECS of a 165 to Maidenhead to enable the evening peak service.

 

[dk1]

I never understand this PPM argument because it makes no sense. It is only a myth.

The overwhelming majority of the time the railways operate smoothly, so that would be two PPM successes instead of one. Not doing that in case an extra PPM failure is suffered is a load of hot air.

Not true. Each train is its own destiny. Why cancel two when you only need to cancel one? That's 50% & the train is not part of a standard pattern or needed for that reason either.

 

[bb21]

Not true. Each train is its own destiny. Why cancel two when you only need to cancel one? That's 50% & the train is not part of a standard pattern or needed for that reason either.

PPM failures are not looked at in isolation. It has to be in the context of overall PPM impact. Two PPM failures may sound like a 100% increase from one PPM failure, in any meaningful measures the industry are interested in, one additional/less train makes very little difference. The only important measure which directly looks at PPM failure count I am aware of is when considering top incidents, where one train would not really alter the picture.

Statistically speaking, if the additional service’s overall performance matches that of the company’s average, there is no impact on PPM in the long run. This can be quite easily proven. The type of services we are discussing here, where needs arise and the service converted from an ECS, normally become an express train of some sort in order not to upset the existing timetable. Express trains tend to perform better than local stoppers, so tend to perform better than the company’s average figure (or at least no worse), and the longer the distance, the more opportunities along the way for it to make up time so the bigger the potential benefit. This is in theory anyway.

The real danger with these additional services do not come from the impact on PPM, but rather the Schedule 7 measurements, especially where a TOC is already in trouble, due to their fine margins. Again the actual impact due to one train is likely to be very small but that is in theory something with a more negative outlook.

Of course it is all well and good talking about theoretical impact, real life is much less predictable, and there can be huge variation in terms of the final outcome of these changes for various reasons. In any case, I doubt any TOC (barring the very smallest such as HT or GC) would spend serious time considering how it can massage PPM figures in this way. One extra train is really like a drop in the ocean. Of far more significance would be any potential need for this additional service in the market, whether it is realistic to accommodate in the timetable, implications on capacity (often small due to these moves generally being counter flow), revenue implications (which can often throw up unexpected results), and reputational gain.

Where TOCs may possibly spend more effort evaluating potential impact on PPM is where wholesale changes are expected, eg. if SWT start considering breaking up all Kingston loop services into two, or SET with Cannon Street loop services.

 

[swt_passenger]

In addition, the "fast" train is booked to take the same time as the "slow" train, so there is no advantage in speed.

ISTR this train is a (temporary?) spinoff from the GW electrification saga. There is little point in introducing a new train that is likely to disappear soon.

Many of the present Maidenhead peak EMUs must have replaced peak only DMUs that already ran only in the peak flow direction. There were probably empty DMUs running contra-peak ECS previously, before the phased changes that got us where we are currently. I think the Dec 2016 timetable was the start of the changes.

And as you rightly say, some will have short lives as the Crossrail takeover of most services develops over the next couple of years.