Station Approach Speeds

[driver9000]

No idea if this applies in this case but the Driver Advisory System (DAS) often tells you different things on what appears to be under the same signal sequence. So while you can see the same aspect sequence, DAS may kick in on the Monday to advise to coast if there is a booked move a few blocks ahead, and on Tuesday will tell the driver different advice if sections ahead are clear as an example so would advise power application. As a passenger you wouldn't have this information.

The key word there is 'advice'. You can choose to pay no heed to what the DAS display is showing you. A Driver should be making their decisions based on what is going on not what a computer is telling them.

 

[Deepgreen]

The 700s are very much restricted on DC (to about half power), and I have been told that they are also restricted (slightly) on the AC. I found the latter hard to believe, but the person who told me would definitely know.

Thanks. So, will the 700s continue to have this restriction in place ad infinitum (if so, why?), or will they be permitted to use their designed performance regime for its intended purpose?

I think what is emerging from this thread is that driving styles still vary a great deal, despite the many efforts to regulate them. I do bemoan the over-cautious style, but can understand why some choose that regime, given the penalties involved. There is still much to be done it seems, as adherence to the regime appears to be wrecking the timetable in some cases. The following question springs to mind - how many train operating staff (i.e. drivers and guards) actually pay attention to timekeeping these days? This is not a criticism, but a genuine question, based on the railway operating regime in place today.

My North Downs line train lost time yet again this morning (the odd minute at most stations) owing to what, based on my frequent observations, would be over-cautious operating (not necessarily just driving). Again, if the operating regime requires the time taken by most trains, which almost always lose time en route, then change the timetable. As I've said, the NDL has just been accelerated slightly, rather than the opposite. BTW, time loss en route was just as bad prior to this change.

Part of the problem may be the delay recording regime - PPM is a nonsense, and routine small delays (which may be of little importance for some passengers) may not be paid attention to, even though they may have knock-on effects for other passengers and the service performance thereafter.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect the DC restriction on the 700s will continue indefinitely, because the DC system is just not capable of further reinforcement at economic cost. It was done a few years ago to support the slam door replacement and it is now running up against the laws of physics on things such as fault currents.

The AC restriction suggests to me that there is deliberate redundancy in the motors and traction packages. If this is so then they would normally operate on 80% of maximum rating but if one or more fails the others can be run closer to 100% to maintain the same performance. It may also be something to do with regenerative braking, although I think that would be down to the number of axles motored rather than the rating of the motors themselves.

 

[The Planner]

Part of the problem may be the delay recording regime - PPM is a nonsense, and routine small delays (which may be of little importance for some passengers) may not be paid attention to, even though they may have knock-on effects for other passengers and the service performance thereafter.

Far from it, ZZ or unexplained delay has a significant amount of focus put on it.

 

[Deepgreen]

Far from it, ZZ or unexplained delay has a significant amount of focus put on it.

Good - could you advise what is the lower limit of delay that warrants this "focus"?

 

[Dave1987]

Thanks. So, will the 700s continue to have this restriction in place ad infinitum (if so, why?), or will they be permitted to use their designed performance regime for its intended purpose?

I think what is emerging from this thread is that driving styles still vary a great deal, despite the many efforts to regulate them. I do bemoan the over-cautious style, but can understand why some choose that regime, given the penalties involved. There is still much to be done it seems, as adherence to the regime appears to be wrecking the timetable in some cases. The following question springs to mind - how many train operating staff (i.e. drivers and guards) actually pay attention to timekeeping these days? This is not a criticism, but a genuine question, based on the railway operating regime in place today.

My North Downs line train lost time yet again this morning (the odd minute at most stations) owing to what, based on my frequent observations, would be over-cautious operating (not necessarily just driving). Again, if the operating regime requires the time taken by most trains, which almost always lose time en route, then change the timetable. As I've said, the NDL has just been accelerated slightly, rather than the opposite. BTW, time loss en route was just as bad prior to this change.

Part of the problem may be the delay recording regime - PPM is a nonsense, and routine small delays (which may be of little importance for some passengers) may not be paid attention to, even though they may have knock-on effects for other passengers and the service performance thereafter.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to gain from this thread. The below threshold hold delays do indeed pose an issue to the industry but in some cases there is absolutely nothing the industry can do about it. A large number of times I have been bang on time, gone to close the doors but then had a group of people then run at the last second for my train and then hold the doors open for the rest of their party. This has then put me a minute down. Safety always comes first and foremost. Im curious as to what you expect to railways to do to combat small delays.

 

[The Planner]

Good - could you advise what is the lower limit of delay that warrants this "focus"?

1 minute if it regularly occurs.

 

[Deepgreen]

1 minute if it regularly occurs.

Many thanks - how is 'regularly' defined? On the NDL it is about 90% of the time - are all these "investigated", I wonder. Given the utter failure to improve over the more than five years that I have used the line with almost exactly the same timetables, both on the route itself and its interacting routes, I suspect either they are not, or nothing results from these so-called 'investigations'.

 

[Deepgreen]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to gain from this thread. The below threshold hold delays do indeed pose an issue to the industry but in some cases there is absolutely nothing the industry can do about it. A large number of times I have been bang on time, gone to close the doors but then had a group of people then run at the last second for my train and then hold the doors open for the rest of their party. This has then put me a minute down. Safety always comes first and foremost. Im curious as to what you expect to railways to do to combat small delays.

What I am trying to gain is an idea of views on the effect of the apparent large variation in driving techniques - with, as I made extremely clear, no blame attached to individuals. The railway claims that every second counts when passengers (remember us??) complain about missed cross-platform connections (whether advertised or not) by ten seconds, but apparently the many minutes lost by ultra-cautious driving (by my own observations) are irrelevant. Lack of consistency is rife.

That's what I hoped to gain - views, rather than indignant responses from the 'oh-so-offended' brigade, despite my overly-clear statement that it's not about blame.

 

[zn1]

can i ask all mainline front seaters, i should know this but excuse me,
your working diagrams are booked at set speeds so assuming an LM Driver is on a stopper to MKC, he/she is expected to keep to the top end of the speed limits, bearing in mind accerlation and braking, the max speed is only be attained for in some cases a matter of minutes or seconds by you, where as on an Intercity -
sorry VT driver is expected to keep to 125 where you are able etc...

i know recovery time is booked in by the planners etc for ENG, slacks, etc, but your job as a front seater is to drive your lady at the speed that is safe and that you feel safe at.
ok we have 125MPH on the fast lines out of euston etc...
but are you penalised for not keeping to the 125mph or the max permitted line speeds allowed on unit/loco you are driving?
are EG the LM front seaters to 90/100/110 limits on the main..



if one compares that to a Natex coach driver on their diagram - what is the safest speed to keep to your booked WTT?

 

[Deepgreen]

can i ask all mainline front seaters, i should know this but excuse me,
your working diagrams are booked at set speeds so assuming an LM Driver is on a stopper to MKC, he/she is expected to keep to the top end of the speed limits, bearing in mind accerlation and braking, the max speed is only be attained for in some cases a matter of minutes or seconds by you, where as on an Intercity -
sorry VT driver is expected to keep to 125 where you are able etc...

i know recovery time is booked in by the planners etc for ENG, slacks, etc, but your job as a front seater is to drive your lady at the speed that is safe and that you feel safe at.
ok we have 125MPH on the fast lines out of euston etc...
but are you penalised for not keeping to the 125mph or the max permitted line speeds allowed on unit/loco you are driving?
are EG the LM front seaters to 90/100/110 limits on the main..



if one compares that to a Natex coach driver on their diagram - what is the safest speed to keep to your booked WTT?

Are you using these three words to refer to 'drivers'?

'Lady' - huh??

 

[ComUtoR]

Are you using these three words to refer to 'drivers'?

Rather liked the term personally.

'Lady' - huh??

My kids asked me if my car was a man or girl. I said I wasn't sure. I've never personified my cars but my ickle ones feel that my car (due to the brand) should be male.

My train ? Oh yeah she's female.

 

[bramling]

can i ask all mainline front seaters, i should know this but excuse me,
your working diagrams are booked at set speeds so assuming an LM Driver is on a stopper to MKC, he/she is expected to keep to the top end of the speed limits, bearing in mind accerlation and braking, the max speed is only be attained for in some cases a matter of minutes or seconds by you, where as on an Intercity -
sorry VT driver is expected to keep to 125 where you are able etc...

i know recovery time is booked in by the planners etc for ENG, slacks, etc, but your job as a front seater is to drive your lady at the speed that is safe and that you feel safe at.
ok we have 125MPH on the fast lines out of euston etc...
but are you penalised for not keeping to the 125mph or the max permitted line speeds allowed on unit/loco you are driving?
are EG the LM front seaters to 90/100/110 limits on the main..



if one compares that to a Natex coach driver on their diagram - what is the safest speed to keep to your booked WTT?

The driver is generally expected to drive as close to line speed as possible providing it is safe to do so, and the timetable is generally based round this but with allowances built in where deemed necessary. It's not like cars where people can choose to drive at a particular speed just because they feel like it or find it more comfortable. A driver failing to achieve line speed would be flagged up during competence assurance, it would be questioned and some kind of explanation would be required - running early would be acceptable as long as this wasn't affecting linecapacity, for example, as well as many other reasons.

 

[Deepgreen]

The driver is generally expected to drive as close to line speed as possible providing it is safe to do so, and the timetable is generally based round this but with allowances built in where deemed necessary. It's not like cars where people can choose to drive at a particular speed just because they feel like it or find it more comfortable. A driver failing to achieve line speed would be flagged up during competence assurance, it would be questioned and some kind of explanation would be required - running early would be acceptable as long as this wasn't affecting linecapacity, for example, as well as many other reasons.

Or leaving stations early, of course!

 

[ComUtoR]

A driver failing to achieve line speed would be flagged up during competence assurance, it would be questioned and some kind of explanation would be required

I've never been expected to run to linespeed. I am expected to keep to time but not linespeed. We are taught that linespeed is a maximum speed, not a target to hit. As I'm metro based I am rarely at linespeed. When I do a bit of mainline work I'm also rarely at linespeed because my unit cant always get there.

 

[Deepgreen]

I've never been expected to run to linespeed. I am expected to keep to time but not linespeed. We are taught that linespeed is a maximum speed, not a target to hit. As I'm metro based I am rarely at linespeed. When I do a bit of mainline work I'm also rarely at linespeed because my unit cant always get there.

I imagine most timetabling is largely based around line speed attainment for a significant proportion of the working, obviously depending on the frequency of stops and the suitability of the stock (which also feature in the timetabling regime). Especially for longer-distance workings, the two aims of time-keeping and line speed attainment will therefore often be the same.

 

[Senex]

I imagine most timetabling is largely based around line speed attainment for a significant proportion of the working, obviously depending on the frequency of stops and the suitability of the stock (which also feature in the timetabling regime). Especially for longer-distance workings, the two aims of time-keeping and line speed attainment will therefore often be the same.

British timetabling, except on the former Southern Region, does seem to be based on running at maximum permitted speed for the section if the motive power can reliably attain that speed. Continental practice (and I'm thinking particuarly of the German way of doing things) times the sectional times for less than maximum permitted speed, with drivers then using the difference to regain time when needed or to gain time in advance of an expected slack. So drivers drive to timetable, not to line-speed.

 

[Deepgreen]

British timetabling, except on the former Southern Region, does seem to be based on running at maximum permitted speed for the section if the motive power can reliably attain that speed. Continental practice (and I'm thinking particuarly of the German way of doing things) times the sectional times for less than maximum permitted speed, with drivers then using the difference to regain time when needed or to gain time in advance of an expected slack. So drivers drive to timetable, not to line-speed.

Yes. In the German example, do the drivers have advisory normal running speeds or are they expected to time their progress?

 

[Senex]

Yes. In the German example, do the drivers have advisory normal running speeds or are they expected to time their progress?

A WTT (in the past Buchfahrplan, now EBuLa display) which they must have open on the desk in front of them that gives passing times for all stations and junctions and the knowledge that with a clear road they will keep time at 5% or 10% (or whatever it might be) below the line-speed. For the high-speed diesel trains of the 1930s target-speed diagrams were used, but I don't think they have other wise been in general use.

 

[Dave1987]

What I am trying to gain is an idea of views on the effect of the apparent large variation in driving techniques - with, as I made extremely clear, no blame attached to individuals. The railway claims that every second counts when passengers (remember us??) complain about missed cross-platform connections (whether advertised or not) by ten seconds, but apparently the many minutes lost by ultra-cautious driving (by my own observations) are irrelevant. Lack of consistency is rife.

That's what I hoped to gain - views, rather than indignant responses from the 'oh-so-offended' brigade, despite my overly-clear statement that it's not about blame.

Yes you clearly stated it's not about blame. But then have gone on to bemoan what you perceive to be overly cautious driving. There are areas I sign where senior drivers and driver instructors have said to be cautious because others have been caught out several times. There are specific speed restrictions, signals and stations that are notorious. I know of train planning staff who refer to our defensive driving techniques we are taught as 'defective driving techniques' because it messes with their perfect world timetables. If you took out all real world problems such and weather and lighting issues and didn't have any passengers then the railway would probably run perfectly. I know of several stations where the timetable allocates 30 seconds dwell time yet by the time passengers have got off and got on, and the door close sequence has completed and the train safety check has been completed the dwell time is closer to a minute to a minute and a half. Try telling that to a timetable planner! By the way a relative of mine is a timetable planner and we have this argument all the time.

 

[ComUtoR]

I imagine most timetabling is largely based around line speed attainment for a significant proportion of the working,

What do you define as 'significant'

obviously depending on the frequency of stops and the suitability of the stock (which also feature in the timetabling regime). Especially for longer-distance workings, the two aims of time-keeping and line speed attainment will therefore often be the same.

Which means that there will be occasions where you are not driving at linespeed and that it has already been factored into the timetable. Which is why I, amongst others, don't see driving style to be a factor in delays and that it doesn't affect the timetable as much as you believe it to. Which it why over caution is of little significance and has minimal impact.

So when your on a service that isn't running to max linespeed you can stop bemoaning it. Now you know, by your own words, that its already built in.

 

[The Planner]

In my experience there is a marked difference in drivers on a route. When stopwatching trains there can often be around 30 seconds difference between locations.

 

[ComUtoR]

In my experience there is a marked difference in drivers on a route. When stopwatching trains there can often be around 30 seconds difference between locations.

As I explained to BR earlier. We don't see your timetable. I get times at stations and that's about it. I hit the next station on time then for me, I'm on time. How I get there and what technique I use doesn't matter because I'm 'on time' Passengers don't care because I hit the station on time and hit the next one on time. PPM doesn't care because I'm within +5 if I'm late.

Personally I don't think planners care either. The timetable is too broken. Again, as mentioned, there are places where I'm never on time. If the planners really cared then they would change the timetable. I know you mentioned the TOC's and how much they resist any changes but until someone actually sits down and takes the responsibility and admits that the SRTs dictate the timetable far more than booked station times then I don't see how it will ever meet any passenger expectations of a timetable that runs 'on time'

IF I had, like I used to, a diagram that printed out all the paths and WTT times then I could give a more accurate representation of PDP, Driving style, timetable etc.

So much affects the running of the service that it cannot be narrowed down to a single thing. We work to such narrow margins that everything breaks it.

 

[bramling]

I've never been expected to run to linespeed. I am expected to keep to time but not linespeed. We are taught that linespeed is a maximum speed, not a target to hit. As I'm metro based I am rarely at linespeed. When I do a bit of mainline work I'm also rarely at linespeed because my unit cant always get there.

I suspect that would be because, as you imply, a lot of the time you can't actually reach line speed for one reason or another.

Are you saying that if you were being assessed on a long stretch of 90 mph, and you chose to keep to 80 mph without a reason of sorts, it wouldn't be flagged up? Where I am it would definitely be flagged up, in fact to the extent that it might even be viewed with some suspicion - e.g. What is this individual doing or what is wrong with them that they're not operating the train at line speed? As I say, a valid reason would be perfectly acceptable, but no reason wouldn't be. Maybe it's a bit of a theoretical issue as most of the time not achieving line speed will generally mean the train runs late, such is the tightness of schedules.

Maybe I am a little old-school, but I take the view that if the railway has expensively provided track and signalling capable of a given speed, the driver is duty bound to make maximum use of that provision- *where safe to do so* and with regard to the timetable. Personally I'm also lukewarm about driving slowly in order to avoid arriving early - so many times has this been done and then something happens at the station like a wheelchair boarding delay or pass com activation, then the train is delayed, a delay which would otherwise have been at least partly absorbed by an early arrival. Most importantly a couple of minutes stand time in a platform also gives the driver time to drink his tea, make an entry in the defect book, or whatever !

 

[exile]

It should be pointed out that driving at 125 mph instead of 120 will save only 2 minutes over a 100 mile trip.

 

[ComUtoR]

I suspect that would be because, as you imply, a lot of the time you can't actually reach line speed for one reason or another.

I'm metro so I accelerate and brake I rarely reach linespeed between stations. The timetable is built with that in mind so not running at linespeed isn't an issue.

What, and this is where they may be confusion, is also happening is that during points in my schedule where my linespeed is achievable (generally because its so low) I need to keep it tight and often so tight that even running full tilt; I still don't make the time but that is where the timetable is at fault.

My skill as a Driver is to know where it is important and where I need to push a little and where I can relax. There is no point in hitting a station early when you have to leave on time anyway, so we don't chase the timetable, it leads to incident when that happens.

I also sign 4 different traction and run mainline too. I run on 100mph line with 75mph traction. By default you cannot reach linespeed. Ergo, linespeed isn't a factor. Its built in that my unit will not achieve linespeed so my timings are built based on my traction. The planner confirmed that in a different thread.

So you have traction that won't make linespeed and a metro timetable that means your constantly braking for your next station.

Hopefully you can see why we aren't pushed on linespeed.

Are you saying that if you were being assessed on a long stretch of 90 mph, and you chose to keep to 80 mph without a reason of sorts, it wouldn't be flagged up?

As you well know, its dependent on the situation. Even when I'm mainline and in 100mph traction the linespeed hits 110mph in places and by default I'm never gonna hit it. Also my unit is crap and even at full pelt you rarely make it. I need a long run up to hit linespeed. Even on the slow side where the linespeed is 90 and I'm in 100mph traction it still doesn't get much past 80. Trust me I've tried Again, my workings just aren't built to run maximum linespeed anyway. If the planner would be so kind to remind me of what the % of unit performance is booked for I'd be grateful, (he/she was pretty awesome last time explaining it)

You also see speeds that aren't possible to achieve in ANY traction. You know those places where the linespeed drops to 40mph for a junction jumps to 60mph after the points but then drops to linespeed of 20 at the next junction that's barely 8 coaches away. That 60. NEVER gonna happen. We have a few of those places too. If anyone can explain some of those speeds then I'd buy you a few beers.

Where I am it would definitely be flagged up, in fact to the extent that it might even be viewed with some suspicion - e.g.What is this individual doing or what is wrong with them that they're not operating the train at line speed?

As BR points out. We also have the PDP to worry about. Eco driving is part of that. The days of full brake, full power are gone. If I was doing that then I'd be considered to be too aggressive.

They know I don't need to push the limits 100% of the time. If my train makes destination on time and hits the stations on time then I get a tick for performance. Where BR and the planner see issue is that certain points are timed very specifically and there can be a visible delay. To us that is insignificant but to a planner who is working in very tight seconds its detrimental.

As I say, a valid reason would be perfectly acceptable, but no reason wouldn't be. Maybe it's a bit of a theoretical issue as most of the time not achieving line speed will generally mean the train runs late, such is the tightness of schedules.

I can run very relaxed most of the time and I can still hit PPM. The tightness issue is that the timetable seems to be built as perfect with little slack. Everything breaks it. Our job is to maintain the timetable as best we can. If I wasn't keeping to time or losing time in unexpected places then yes I'd be pulled. Again, we have so many places where we get regularly delayed or where the timetable will never be met that they have become known delays and they are ignored.

Maybe I am a little old-school, but I take the view that if the railway has expensively provided track and signalling capable of a given speed, the driver is duty bound to make maximum use of that provision- *where safe to do so* and with regard to the timetable.

Most of us agree and generally we do. But we are also acutely aware to prioritise safety, follow the pretty lights and allow sufficient dwell at stations. All of which breaks the timetable.

Personally I'm also lukewarm about driving slowly in order to avoid arriving early - so many times has this been done and then something happens at the station like a wheelchair boarding delay or pass com activation, then the train is delayed, a delay which would otherwise have been at least partly absorbed by an early arrival.

I'm on the fence at the moment too. I wouldn't say driving slow to avoid running early but more from a perspective where I have seen too many Drivers racing around and then getting caught out. Slipthroughs often come about due to Drivers making up time; same with TPWS activations.

Not forgetting that it may also be the case that running right to the linespeed and tight to the unit in front means your constantly on single yellow or red. If I hit the destination on time then I'm gonna hang back to two yellow/green rather than chase the red. ECS has a high incident rate because Drivers are chasing linespeeds and the service in front.

Most importantly a couple of minutes stand time in a platform also gives the driver time to drink his tea, make an entry in the defect book, or whatever !

Wish I had the time. You should see my schedules. In and out in the same minute Metro just doesn't have the dwell times. What really ****s me off about some of our times is that you can get (specific to my depot) a change end time of 20 minutes on some trips and any delays are swallowed by turnaround. On other trips a single minute means your late all day and it compounds further because we run so many paths; its too tight through various junctions to lose 30 seconds So your buggered by not having recovery in turnaround times or the trip is too tight but there is ample room in turnarounds. WTF that seems very backwards timings. Literally one trip has 23 minutes but the other end has 7.

I've been driving now for a good few years and I have extensively tested my driving style against the timetable. I have shown Driver Managers, Trainees, Drivers, Instructors direct examples where being aggressive or defensive just doesn't make a difference. With experience I have learned where I need to push it and where I'm never gonna make it.

We all want to keep to time but we know the constraints.

 

[ComUtoR]

It should be pointed out that driving at 125 mph instead of 120 will save only 2 minutes over a 100 mile trip.

I assume that is a sustained speed too. Nothing I drive has such a high speed over such a distance. Again, it highlights to me that being under linespeed has less impact that people believe.

 

[The Planner]

As I explained to BR earlier. We don't see your timetable. I get times at stations and that's about it. I hit the next station on time then for me, I'm on time. How I get there and what technique I use doesn't matter because I'm 'on time' Passengers don't care because I hit the station on time and hit the next one on time. PPM doesn't care because I'm within +5 if I'm late.

My example was based upon experience of where the SRTs were station to station, not at intermediate locations of significance.

Personally I don't think planners care either. The timetable is too broken. Again, as mentioned, there are places where I'm never on time. If the planners really cared then they would change the timetable. I know you mentioned the TOC's and how much they resist any changes but until someone actually sits down and takes the responsibility and admits that the SRTs dictate the timetable far more than booked station times then I don't see how it will ever meet any passenger expectations of a timetable that runs 'on time'

You have answered your own question, of course we care, we don't turn up day after day to accept delay minutes for the fun of it.

IF I had, like I used to, a diagram that printed out all the paths and WTT times then I could give a more accurate representation of PDP, Driving style, timetable etc.

So much affects the running of the service that it cannot be narrowed down to a single thing. We work to such narrow margins that everything breaks it.

RealTimetTrains is pretty much a WTT with locations we don't use added in, however I don't disagree that the timetable is now at a point where it breaks if someone looks the wrong way. That cannot be blamed on the planners 100% as, again, if we reject a bid then the operator will know throw its toys out.

 

[The Planner]

I suspect that would be because, as you imply, a lot of the time you can't actually reach line speed for one reason or another.

That is factored into SRTs.

Maybe I am a little old-school, but I take the view that if the railway has expensively provided track and signalling capable of a given speed, the driver is duty bound to make maximum use of that provision- *where safe to do so* and with regard to the timetable.

As the timetable is only in ½ minute intervals and the way SRTs are rounded, there is always an element where over a section you would be on time if you drove at say 37mph instead of 40mph, but also where you will always be 10 or so seconds late but that will even itself out over the route.

 

[The Planner]

As you well know, its dependent on the situation. Even when I'm mainline and in 100mph traction the linespeed hits 110mph in places and by default I'm never gonna hit it. Also my unit is crap and even at full pelt you rarely make it. I need a long run up to hit linespeed. Even on the slow side where the linespeed is 90 and I'm in 100mph traction it still doesn't get much past 80. Trust me I've tried Again, my workings just aren't built to run maximum linespeed anyway. If the planner would be so kind to remind me of what the % of unit performance is booked for I'd be grateful, (he/she was pretty awesome last time explaining it)

Only she if asked nicely at weekends , depending on the software used its 95% of the traction's maximum capability and 0.588 m/s² acceleration even if a unit is capable of more. Can't recall the braking at the minute. All of that will leave us with times in seconds between various points which are rounded appropriately to create the SRTs.

You also see speeds that aren't possible to achieve in ANY traction. You know those places where the linespeed drops to 40mph for a junction jumps to 60mph after the points but then drops to linespeed of 20 at the next junction that's barely 8 coaches away. That 60. NEVER gonna happen. We have a few of those places too. If anyone can explain some of those speeds then I'd buy you a few beers.

We do flag those up as we understand that a speed profile like that is never going to be driven to.

Most of us agree and generally we do. But we are also acutely aware to prioritise safety, follow the pretty lights and allow sufficient dwell at stations. All of which breaks the timetable.

Dwells are an issue which we have little control over, we know that modern units have door cycles that will need a 45 second dwell but the only way to reflect that is ½, 1, ½ etc. We cannot increase dwells without TOC agreement.

So your buggered by not having recovery in turnaround times or the trip is too tight but there is ample room in turnarounds. WTF that seems very backwards timings. Literally one trip has 23 minutes but the other end has 7

That is your diagram team doing that. There is a minimum agreed turnaround time at most places and if they want to run the risk of sweating the units all the time then that is up to them.