"We can't stop at University because we've got the wrong kind of train"

[Marvin]

A colleague was delayed on her way into work this morning as her train from Droitwich didn't stop at University, and according to her the guard on the train apparently made the above announcement to explain why. I presume this was one of the new class 196 trains.

Does anyone know if (and if so, why) a class 196 isn't able to stop at University? It can't a gauging issue as they still went along the Birmingham West Suburban line, just without stopping.

I think the train was 1M57, but that's based purely on timing rather than direct knowledge, and RTT shows it as having stopped.

 

[D1537]

I think the train was 1M57, but that's based purely on timing rather than direct knowledge, and RTT shows it as having stopped.

Although RTT shows it having stopped for 15 seconds (0858 3/4 - 0859), which is clearly not possible, so I'm guessing this was the train and RTT simply assumed it had stopped when it hadn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although RTT shows it having stopped for 15 seconds (0858 3/4 - 0859), which is clearly not possible, so I'm guessing this was the train and RTT simply assumed it had stopped when it hadn't.

Realtime Trains can't know if it physically stopped or not, it just has the arrival and departure time, it'd only know it didn't stop if the stop was cancelled in the relevant system.

 

[Spartacus]

It certainly failed to call, info I'm getting is that it's due to the ongoing working to rule, presumably some sort of issue with a 196/1 calling there, which wouldn't apply to say a 172 or a pair of 323s?

 

[Bantamzen]

Oh boy, the bots at the newspapers are going to love that headline "Passengers Miss Stop Because Of wrong Type Of Train". I wonder which one will pick it up first, the Metro, Daily Mail or someone else...

 

[Marvin]

It certainly failed to call, info I'm getting is that it's due to the ongoing working to rule, presumably some sort of issue with a 196/1 calling there, which wouldn't apply to say a 172 or a pair of 323s?

I can't imagine what that issue might actually be though. Is there something unique to University station that means each type of unit needs to be separately approved to stop there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't imagine what that issue might actually be though. Is there something unique to University station that means each type of unit needs to be separately approved to stop there?

That's a requirement for all stations, isn't it?

 

[Marvin]

That's a requirement for all stations, isn't it?

I had assumed that if a unit and/or member of staff is cleared to work a route in the first place then that includes clearance to stop at the stations on that route.

 

[AJDesiro]

I can't imagine what that issue might actually be though. Is there something unique to University station that means each type of unit needs to be separately approved to stop there?

AFAIK 196/1s can't stop at University yet, because they haven't had guard panels retrofitted in the vestibules, due to the curved nature of the platform they're not allowed to dispatch unless they're at the centre of the train. If the service was 1M57, the unit in question was 196110, which would explain it.

 

[Marvin]

AFAIK 196/1s can't stop at University yet, because they haven't had guard panels retrofitted in the vestibules, due to the curved nature of the platform they're not allowed to dispatch unless they're at the centre of the train.

That would make sense, thanks!

 

[Spartacus]

AFAIK 196/1s can't stop at University yet, because they haven't had guard panels retrofitted in the vestibules, due to the curved nature of the platform they're not allowed to dispatch unless they're at the centre of the train. If the service was 1M57, the unit in question was 196110, which would explain it.

I was thinking it could be something to do with the curve, thanks for confirming it.

 

[12LDA28C]

It certainly failed to call, info I'm getting is that it's due to the ongoing working to rule, presumably some sort of issue with a 196/1 calling there, which wouldn't apply to say a 172 or a pair of 323s?

A RDW and overtime ban would have zero bearing in this situation. Clearly there was a driver on the train so the issue lies elsewhere, as described in post #9.

 

[Spartacus]

A RDW and overtime ban would have zero bearing in this situation. Clearly there was a driver on the train so the issue lies elsewhere, as described in post #9.

All I'm saying is what I've got, but the direct source says it's related to the current action and the provision of a 196/1. Could be the normal work around could be two guards, but due to no RDW there wasn't one, I dunno.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I was thinking it could be something to do with the curve, thanks for confirming it.

Would this only apply on the Birmingham-bound platform, ie on the outside of the curve?

 

[12LDA28C]

All I'm saying is what I've got, but the direct source says it's related to the current action and the provision of a 196/1. Could be the normal work around could be two guards, but due to no RDW there wasn't one, I dunno.

Interesting, but of course it's drivers in ASLEF who are not working RDs currently, guards (who would be RMT) are not affected. I'd be surprised if two guards would be provided for a single unit but in theory it could happen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2023 ==

Would this only apply on the Birmingham-bound platform, ie on the outside of the curve?

I'd imagine so. If a guard can gain a clear view of the full length of the train from the rear cab (ie with the platform curve in their favour) then there should be no issue.

 

[High Dyke]

All I'm saying is what I've got, but the direct source says it's related to the current action and the provision of a 196/1. Could be the normal work around could be two guards, but due to no RDW there wasn't one, I dunno.

Different union involved in the overtime ban. It isn't anything to do with Guards. As mentioned, probably more to do with the type of stock and platform interface.

 

[AJDesiro]

All I'm saying is what I've got, but the direct source says it's related to the current action and the provision of a 196/1. Could be the normal work around could be two guards, but due to no RDW there wasn't one, I dunno.

Currently the workaround is to use two 196/0s coupled together to create a four car unit, this ensures that the guard has a panel at the middle of the train at university. Presumably there were no available /0s so it was thought easier to not stop at University than to cancel the service altogether.

 

[T-Karmel]

The reason given in NR app suggests something completely different. I guess they just didn't have the option "wrong type of train" yet to choose from and thought it's easier to blame staff!

 

[74A]

Was the original unit a 2 car or a 3 car train ?

 

[td97]

The reason given in NR app suggests something completely different. I guess they just didn't have the option "wrong type of train" yet to choose from and thought it's easier to blame staff!

Could be correct if the "shortage of traincrew" is referring to depot drivers who would perform shunts to create a 2x 196/0 consist.

 

[Class172]

Was the original unit a 2 car or a 3 car train ?

It would have been a 4-car unit (196/1). If the unit has not yet been fitted with intermediate saloon door control panels then it cannot be dispatched safely from the platform at University due to the track curvature. As mentioned by a previous poster, typically 2 196/0s (which are 2-car units) have been coupled together on the services, which can call at the station since there are intermediate cabs. It's hopefully a temporary issue until the 4-car units have all been retrofitted with the door controls.

 

[12LDA28C]

It would have been a 4-car unit (196/1). If the unit has not yet been fitted with intermediate saloon door control panels then it cannot be dispatched safely from the platform at University due to the track curvature. As mentioned by a previous poster, typically 2 196/0s (which are 2-car units) have been coupled together on the services, which can call at the station since there are intermediate cabs. It's hopefully a temporary issue until the 4-car units have all been retrofitted with the door controls.

Pretty poor that a brand new unit has to be retrofitted with anything in order to perform its normal duties - why were they not specced correctly prior to construction?

 

[tomuk]

Pretty poor that a brand new unit has to be retrofitted with anything in order to perform its normal duties - why were they not specced correctly prior to construction?

They were meant to be DOO\DCO but somewhere along the line WMT\DFT decided to keep the guards and a programme of retrofitting guard panels was instituted. Why all the CAF units can't be equipped for both methods of working and used as appropriate is a mystery.

 

[MotCO]

They were meant to be DOO\DCO but somewhere along the line WMT\DFT decided to keep the guards and a programme of retrofitting guard panels was instituted. Why all the CAF units can't be equipped for both methods of working and used as appropriate is a mystery.

But presuambly the driver would have to close the doors from the front of the train rather than the middle. How could the driver see if it is safe to close the doors?

 

[T-Karmel]

But presuambly the driver would have to close the doors from the front of the train rather than the middle. How could the driver see if it is safe to close the doors?

There's cameras on the body side of the train for the driver to dispatch as part of DOO. Guards dispatch trains differently, more manually, physically looking on the outside of the train.

 

[Parham Wood]

Better than no train at all but illustrates all that is wrong with the railways these days. I suppose equipping the station with cameras and a screen which should not take long to do potentially would be prone to vandalism or theft.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Surely that issue would have been known about and should have been announced well in advance rather than just by the guard on the train?

 

[Bartsimho]

Oh boy, the bots at the newspapers are going to love that headline "Passengers Miss Stop Because Of wrong Type Of Train". I wonder which one will pick it up first, the Metro, Daily Mail or someone else...

I mean it seems like a fairly large oversight somewhere. Running a train on a service it can't fulfil. And by the sounds of it only announcing when it is the next stop and not before the previous one.
As this is also on the Western side due to the curve at University there should probably have been an announcement at Selly Oak and all previous stations that this train would not call at University.

Edit: And something local people and papers should hold West Midlands Railway to account over as it directly effects passenger journeys in an unexpected way and is something that should be in WMR control.

 

[jfollows]

I mean it seems like a fairly large oversight somewhere. Running a train on a service it can't fulfil. And by the sounds of it only announcing when it is the next stop and not before the previous one.
As this is also on the Western side due to the curve at University there should probably have been an announcement at Selly Oak and all previous stations that this train would not call at University.

Edit: And something local people and papers should hold West Midlands Railway to account over as it directly effects passenger journeys in an unexpected way and is something that should be in WMR control.

Previous station was Bromsgrove, and it’d be a whole lot slower to have got off there rather than turning back at New Street. Well, a bit slower anyway.

 

[Bartsimho]

Previous station was Bromsgrove, and it’d be a whole lot slower to have got off there rather than turning back at New Street. Well, a bit slower anyway.

If there was no announcement there then I would say there is an issue. It also depends if it was announced on the train the fastest alternate route which as you say would be to go to New Street and get one heading back the other way with ticket validity already confirmed on the train as well as I would assume that the next service back would have also been a WMR service making that easier to organise.

Although the whole situation seems like an avoidable mess unless a train was in the wrong place from something like the Overtime Ban causing it to stable somewhere other than planned causing diagramming issues.