Trains forced to wait when clear paths are available

[Class 800]

I'm currently on board 1E21, a fast Edinburgh-Kings Cross service which got 5 minutes late prior to Darlington, where I boarded.

It was expected that we would make up time between York and London nonstop, but instead of that we are now 14 minutes late and I will miss my local connection from Kings Cross.

Why? We were made to wait for a long time outside Peterborough for a Leeds train that had arrived into Platform 3 four minutes early.

The train should have been pathed into a free Platform 2, to allow our service to pass, or at least we should have been allowed to go through Platform 2 at reduced speed.

Instead, we had to wait for over five minutes at a standstill.

Is this not basic common sense? I am not a railway worker myself, just somewhat of an enthusiast, but am I missing something here?
Or was the signaller simply too lazy to utilize the free path through Platform 2?

This is not the first time I have been on a late-running train which has been "punished" by being made to wait behind a service that has stopped.

I hope ERTMS puts an end to this wasting of paths.

 

[skyhigh]

I hope ERTMS puts an end to this wasting of paths.

Don't hold your breath on that.

Or was the signaller simply too lazy to utilize the free path through Platform 2?

It was probably Automatic Route Setting (ARS) making a dog's dinner of it, as recently seems to be the case round Peterborough since the recontrol. I highly doubt the signaller was being "lazy".

 

[800001]

I'm currently on board 1E21, a fast Edinburgh-Kings Cross service which got 5 minutes late prior to Darlington, where I boarded.

It was expected that we would make up time between York and London nonstop, but instead of that we are now 14 minutes late and I will miss my local connection from Kings Cross.

Why? We were made to wait for a long time outside Peterborough for a Leeds train that had arrived into Platform 3 four minutes early.

The train should have been pathed into a free Platform 2, to allow our service to pass, or at least we should have been allowed to go through Platform 2 at reduced speed.

Instead, we had to wait for over five minutes at a standstill.

Is this not basic common sense? I am not a railway worker myself, just somewhat of an enthusiast, but am I missing something here?
Or was the signaller simply too lazy to utilize the free path through Platform 2?

This is not the first time I have been on a late-running train which has been "punished" by being made to wait behind a service that has stopped.

I hope ERTMS puts an end to this wasting of paths.

Most likely the DRS signalling system, rather than a ‘lazy’ signallers.

Platform 1 had an EMR in platform, and platform 2 was booked to have Thameslink 9J61 in, however that was cancelled.

The automatic signalling will therefore of kept 1E21 to its booked route of platform 3.

Some would say, signaller could have spotted conflict, however, we do not know what else signaller was dealing with at the time.

 

[Class 800]

Don't hold your breath on that.


It was probably Automatic Route Setting (ARS) making a dog's dinner of it, as recently seems to be the case round Peterborough since the recontrol. I highly doubt the signaller was being "lazy".

As I figured. Computers being ignorant.

The fast service is LNER's flagship.
Is it not the case that any and all other services are usually moved out of the way for it?

Or is it just the case that a Class 1 is a Class 1 and they all have equal priority?

 

[800001]

As I figured. Computers being ignorant.

The fast service is LNER's flagship.
Is it not the case that any and all other services are usually moved out of the way for it?

Or is it just the case that a Class 1 is a Class 1 and they all have equal priority?

Services are regulated where ever possible.

However slowing your service down, to run around the other service, may also of delayed that departing.

Again, without knowing what else signaller was dealing with, it is hard to know why the service wasn’t routed around, or they may have a valid reason for not doing so, only they will know reasons for your service being ‘held’.

The ‘fast’ service of LNER is treat no different to any other LNER service.

 

[Bow Fell]

One of the main issues of DRS/ARS highlighted here.

If the signaller constantly intervenes then what is the point of DRS/ARS, granted during disruption the signaller might have their “sub” off anyway.

There’s a lot of issues with DRS/ARS that are actually being masked by signallers. And the argument is if the signaller or Train Running Controller is intervening making decisions for DRS/ARS they are making the system look a lot better than it actually is.

I’ve seen DRS do things I never thought possible, you watch it and think why on earth has it done that?!

 

[High Dyke]

This is not the first time I have been on a late-running train which has been "punished" by being made to wait behind a service that has stopped.

What was the bigger picture? If your train delayed another, purely to run an on time service, what impact would that service have further along its route?

I hope ERTMS puts an end to this wasting of paths.

According to Network Rail, the first section of 'overlay' is between Welwyn and Hitchin. The further development of the section up to Stoke Tunnel (near Grantham) may take up to five years.

A new proving desk and Radio Block Centre will be put in place in York ROC, to enable the first overnight proving trains to operate from spring 2024. It is expected that migration to ETCS operations on passenger and freight services through the overlay section will begin in 2025.

Digital future of signalling on the East Coast Main Line takes major step forward after section commissioning

The East Coast Digital Programme has taken a big step forward with the renewal of infrastructure successfully commissioned that now enables the Welwyn to Hitchin (W2H) ETCS overlay to be tested and proven, with engineers having worked around the clock between 17-20 February. W2H is Britain’s...

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

 

[Class 800]

Well, I do not know why the service was delayed near Reston. This seems to have caused us to miss the tight path which would have kept us on time.

I wonder if this is more common on busy mainlines like the W/ECML because there are so many services sharing the same 4 tracks.

Sometimes I wonder if signalers are even looking. Should they not be keeping an eye on late running trains?

 

[Gloster]

So you were delayed a bit for some reason: it happens and you might as well accept that that‘s life. Instead you seem to be lashing out at the signaller because s/he had the temerity not to give your train priority over everything else. Signallers have to juggle all the options in order to get the best overall result.

 

[Class 800]

So you were delayed a bit for some reason: it happens and you might as well accept that that‘s life. Instead you seem to be lashing out at the signaller because s/he had the temerity not to give your train priority over everything else. Signallers have to juggle all the options in order to get the best overall result.

Look, I have a LOT of respect for signalers. They handle a lot of trains on tight paths on lines that were not built to take so many.

And so I absolutely do not intend to “lash out” at signalers for this. It’s clear ARS is likely to blame for this.

And there was one times when, for example, I have been on a late night semifast service from KGX up to Potters Bar and we were late out, so got moved onto the fast lines to overtake a freight train.
Clearly a good human behind that.

But I am genuinely curious about what the priorities are for signaling. Is there an overarching rule that in general, on-time services should be kept on-time at the expense of late-running trains?

Is there any moving around that happens when late running gets near the Delay Repay threshold to avoid having to pay out (a cynical thought perhaps)?

To be honest as somewhat-of-an-enthusiast with a fair amount of free time right now I do want to learn about all these decisions and what affects all of this.

 

[800001]

Look, I have a LOT of respect for signalers. They handle a lot of trains on tight paths on lines that were not built to take so many.

And so I absolutely do not intend to “lash out” at signalers for this. It’s clear ARS is likely to blame for this.

And there was one times when, for example, I have been on a late night semifast service from KGX up to Potters Bar and we were late out, so got moved onto the fast lines to overtake a freight train.
Clearly a good human behind that.

But I am genuinely curious about what the priorities are for signaling. Is there an overarching rule that in general, on-time services should be kept on-time at the expense of late-running trains?

Is there any moving around that happens when late running gets near the Delay Repay threshold to avoid having to pay out (a cynical thought perhaps)?

To be honest as somewhat-of-an-enthusiast with a fair amount of free time right now I do want to learn about all these decisions and what affects all of this.

Signallers will not have any interest in a service being late making the TOC pay delay repay.

However TOC controllers may try and request regulation for a late running service, to try and maintain punctuality, it is sometimes granted and signallers regulate.

 

[Twingo37175]

Looking at this, you may have been unlucky at doncaster. Normally the Leeds train is from platform 8 and takes the avoiding line to pick up the fast line further south of doncaster.
It was today on platform 1 and routed out a couple of minutes In front of you, normally the routing being the up slow for these services but this was direct to the up fast. Again though, I have no idea of what was happening in the doncaster signal box

 

[Class 800]

Looking at this, you may have been unlucky at doncaster. Normally the Leeds train is from platform 8 and takes the avoiding line to pick up the fast line further south of doncaster.
It was today on platform 1 and routed out a couple of minutes In front of you, normally the routing being the up slow for these services but this was direct to the up fast. Again though, I have no idea of what was happening in the doncaster signal box

We did slow down significantly near Doncaster

 

[Surreytraveller]

Maybe there was a set of points out and they couldn't regulate.
Maybe the signaller was busy. Maybe control was busy. Staff aren't generally sitting around doing nothing monitoring each individual train

 

[DarloRich]

Or was the signaller simply too lazy to utilize the free path through Platform 2

Do you really think this is a reason?

 

[wokspotter]

Maybe there was a set of points out and they couldn't regulate.
Maybe the signaller was busy. Maybe control was busy. Staff aren't generally sitting around doing nothing monitoring each individual train

Maybe the signaller had gone for a dump!

 

[skyhigh]

Look, I have a LOT of respect for signalers. They handle a lot of trains on tight paths on lines that were not built to take so many.

And so I absolutely do not intend to “lash out” at signalers for this. It’s clear ARS is likely to blame for this.

And yet, in your first post you said:

Is this not basic common sense?

Or was the signaller simply too lazy

Followed up by:

Sometimes I wonder if signalers are even looking. Should they not be keeping an eye on late running trains?

Certainly didn't sound as if you had much respect or were interested in the reasons, it read to me as more of a rant to be honest.

 

[Tram203]

The questions raised by the OP suggest the absence of any meaningful information onboard 1E21 regarding the reasons for the delays.

Clearly it isn't reasonable to expect detailed information about 1A45 doing A instead of B or 9J61 doing C instead of D, but due to "congestion" or "a faulty set of points reducing the number of tracks available" for instance would give at least some information to the typical passenger about the reasons for the delay.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Maybe there was a set of points out and they couldn't regulate.
Maybe the signaller was busy. Maybe control was busy. Staff aren't generally sitting around doing nothing monitoring each individual train

And of course, ‘monitoring every individual train’ is far from ‘doing nothing’!
That’s a lot of trains, well into double figures, and each has a lot of scenarios and recovery options to keep an eye on which signallers simply don’t have time for if they’ve anything else going on.
Certainly not defending this signaller, and I’m well aware of the Peterborough problems at the moment, but signallers are dealing with the big picture. All of these threads about why wasn’t X train regulated for Y are so easy with hindsight and without having to think about anything else at the same time!

 

[Class 800]

Certainly didn't sound as if you had much respect or were interested in the reasons, it read to me as more of a rant to be honest.

I was frustrated at the time due to a missed connection, surely that is understandable?

And I am certainly interested in the reasons. That is exactly why I came here.

Do you really think this is a reason?

No, of course not. It didn’t seem plausible even then, but I did not know how else to phrase the post.

Now I know it is likely ARS to blame, because I now know that even exists, and if it was a human, “basic common sense” would likely have been followed!

All of you who have just criticized my post/posting style without actually telling me anything useful - tell me honestly that you have never been in that position? End of a long day, long journey, delayed, missed connection, generally having a bad day, a bit frustrated?

I promise I am usually a very levelheaded person. I have never, and will never, blame someone to their face. My post sounded cynical but I was just genuinely curious.

The questions raised by the OP suggest the absence of any meaningful information onboard 1E21 regarding the reasons for the delays.

To answer your question, all we got was “waiting for the train in front to depart Peterborough.”

I was looking at Traksy and the clear platform 2 was visible. It was clear long before the Leeds service pulled in.

Is it not routine for those things to be looked at?

I am genuinely curious, because there are times before that we have been made to wait on a late running service sometimes getting delayed by 10+ because we are stuck behind a stopper.

The next question I am now curious about is exactly how ARS works? A friend of mine has described it to me as a “simple, first-come-first-served algorithm” but could anyone explain further?

I so far do not know very much about how it all works. I don’t know what happens in the ROCs, I don’t know what contributes to signaling decisions or what is in the rule book, I don’t know any of that. I do genuinely want to learn.

 

[150219]

I was looking at Traksy and the clear platform 2 was visible. It was clear long before the Leeds service pulled in.

Is it not routine for those things to be looked at?

I am genuinely curious, because there are times before that we have been made to wait on a late running service sometimes getting delayed by 10+ because we are stuck behind a stopper.

The next question I am now curious about is exactly how ARS works? A friend of mine has described it to me as a “simple, first-come-first-served algorithm” but could anyone explain further?

I so far do not know very much about how it all works. I don’t know what happens in the ROCs, I don’t know what contributes to signaling decisions or what is in the rule book, I don’t know any of that. I do genuinely want to learn.

There are exceptions to every 'rule', but being routine is probably not a word that I'd use from my experience.

One consideration for replatforming trains is how many customers will be affected, i.e., those waiting on the station platform and the journey they'll need to take to get to the new platform. Not only that, but also the station staff (where applicable) that need to be informed of the change. Larger stations might only have designated dispatchers on duty at certain times and at certain platforms. Unstaffed stations bring their own problems by ensuring adequate and advance customer information rather than guessing by the fact that a train roughly at the right-time has arrived in a different platform.

Another consideration is what is to be gained by doing so. If I don't want to move customers, shall I replatform another train instead? Does that train then need to crossover using slower speed pointwork and therefore delay it by an extra 2 minutes, when by replatforming the first train I might have lost the same amount of time (if not more) by waiting for the customers to come over.

Depending on the staff hierarchy, an idea to replatform might need to go from the signaller to the signaller supervisor to the Train Running Controller to the TOC control to the station staff. All of this takes time and many decisions regarding train running need to be made right there and right then. A minute later and it's just not worth doing. In this example you were involved in, it might have been a call from the driver to the signaller that made it obvious it was where it was and therefore the chain of communication starts there. But let's remember the signaller might not be able to make that decision.

Nobody is immune to criticism, but it takes a lot to understand the full ramifications and decision making process. Some people have been doing it professionally for years and come away after making a decision to either leave it or do something brave, but it was still wrong. That's life! Nothing is generally done to annoy. In most (if not all) cases it's all done because it was judged as the best thing to do in the time that was available.

So, in summary - I don't know the specifics of your example but I hope this tries to explain a little of the decision making process that goes on.

ARS is generally very simple and sometimes the simplest things work best. It is a little more layered and there are exceptions and priorities that can be programmed in, but essentially it is just trying to do the best job it can by working out whether train 'a' can get to the next ARS area the quickest.

 

[WAB]

Depending on the staff hierarchy, an idea to replatform might need to go from the signaller to the signaller supervisor to the Train Running Controller to the TOC control to the station staff. All of this takes time and many decisions regarding train running need to be made right there and right then. A minute later and it's just not worth doing. In this example you were involved in, it might have been a call from the driver to the signaller that made it obvious it was where it was and therefore the chain of communication starts there. But let's remember the signaller might not be able to make that decision.

Is this really the way the hierarchy is nowadays? What value does it add to the traditional signaller > station staff communications route?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Is there still some reluctance to run non-stop southbound trains through Peterborough other than via the ‘fast’ Platform 3 (on an unplanned basis) because of the very significant speed reduction needed and overspeed incidents in fairly recent times?

 

[800001]

Is there still some reluctance to run non-stop southbound trains through Peterborough other than via the ‘fast’ Platform 3 (on an unplanned basis) because of the very significant speed reduction needed and overspeed incidents in fairly recent times?

I, it happens frequently

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

Maybe the signaller had gone for a dump!

And if they had, a break relief signaller, or a manager would then cover the desk

 

[Steve Harris]

As I figured. Computers being ignorant.

The fast service is LNER's flagship.
Is it not the case that any and all other services are usually moved out of the way for it?

Or is it just the case that a Class 1 is a Class 1 and they all have equal priority?

I don't think a computer can be ignorant, however, there is a well known computer related saying... crap in = crap out ! (I.e. a computer is only ever as good as the standard of programming that has been used).

 

[Horizon22]

Ah this is the sort of thing you see day in/day out. Often it is ARS sticking rigidly to what it is told and for whatever reason the signaller has not noticed the issue during some sort of service delay/alteration. Short-notice platform changes have their own risks though, as threads on a periodic basis on this forum highlight.

Is this really the way the hierarchy is nowadays? What value does it add to the traditional signaller > station staff communications route?

Well station staff don't always have the power to change the customer information systems and the platform in advance & also the signaller does not always make this call.

Often the hierarchy is just signaller and nobody else, frustrating everyone!

 

[Steve Harris]

I was frustrated at the time due to a missed connection, surely that is understandable?

And I am certainly interested in the reasons. That is exactly why I came here.


No, of course not. It didn’t seem plausible even then, but I did not know how else to phrase the post.

Now I know it is likely ARS to blame, because I now know that even exists, and if it was a human, “basic common sense” would likely have been followed!

All of you who have just criticized my post/posting style without actually telling me anything useful - tell me honestly that you have never been in that position? End of a long day, long journey, delayed, missed connection, generally having a bad day, a bit frustrated?

I promise I am usually a very levelheaded person. I have never, and will never, blame someone to their face. My post sounded cynical but I was just genuinely curious.


To answer your question, all we got was “waiting for the train in front to depart Peterborough.”

I was looking at Traksy and the clear platform 2 was visible. It was clear long before the Leeds service pulled in.

Is it not routine for those things to be looked at?

I am genuinely curious, because there are times before that we have been made to wait on a late running service sometimes getting delayed by 10+ because we are stuck behind a stopper.

The next question I am now curious about is exactly how ARS works? A friend of mine has described it to me as a “simple, first-come-first-served algorithm” but could anyone explain further?

I so far do not know very much about how it all works. I don’t know what happens in the ROCs, I don’t know what contributes to signaling decisions or what is in the rule book, I don’t know any of that. I do genuinely want to learn.

At Peterborough DRS is used (which is a form of ARS but is different to standard ARS).

I suggest you take a look at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-signalling-rocs.259348/page-5#post-6562463
where you will find some more information.

Ah this is the sort of thing you see day in/day out. Often it is ARS sticking rigidly to what it is told and for whatever reason the signaller has not noticed the issue during some sort of service delay/alteration. Short-notice platform changes have their own risks though, as threads on a periodic basis on this forum highlight.

Exactly this ^

I posted in the thread I've mentioned above due to watching OTT maps/tracks etc and noticed (what I would call non common sense scenarios unfold before my eyes) and asked what was behind this (to me, silly decision making). And the answer (which was given to me in the quoted thread) is DRS, which to me, needs "tweaking" to improve decision making and cut down the added delays that I have seen it cause. Of course the silly decisions I have seen DRS make could have been avoided by a signaller taking control, but as pointed out up thread, if a signaller needs to keep intervening then what is the point of having DRS !

I think sometimes you literally have to let a system do its own thing and when it all goes pear shaped you actually have evidence to show "the powers that be" how bad "the system" is, as unfortunately (as I have found out in my career) there are to many yes men/women who won't believe that a system is so bad and that everything is "just fine" ! (The post office Horizon system being a case in point.)

 

[snookertam]

Is this really the way the hierarchy is nowadays? What value does it add to the traditional signaller > station staff communications route?

Depends on the station and signalling centre.

If Scotland is anything to go by, previously efficient and well working arrangements to change platforms at short notice have been jettisoned in order for NR to save some money by getting rid of positions that are deemed as not strictly necessary.

The concept of mitigating late running is being lost in the railway in general.

 

[Hadders]

It's also worth bearing in mind that on the south ECML the Thameslink trains to Brighton/Horsham should take priority to make sure they're on time into the core. Otherwise the knock on delays can be significant.

 

[Steve Harris]

It's also worth bearing in mind that on the south ECML the Thameslink trains to Brighton/Horsham should take priority to make sure they're on time into the core. Otherwise the knock on delays can be significant.

That may well be true, but has no effect on a Computer system delay on setting a route because it thinks there's a conflicting move when actually there isn't (because the service has been cancelled) but the computer system (ARS/DRS) hasn't been told !