South Western Railway is reporting disruption all morning (until 1000hrs) to and from Waterloo because “earlier today, a train arrived London Waterloo earlier than scheduled”.
How does that work exactly?
Is the general idea that the steam stock is supposed to arrive well before the morning peak, to avoid any possible conflicts?It was actually the empty stock for the steam hauled services. It was let out early and held closer to Waterloo than it should have been, which delayed 2C12, which then presumably mucked everything else up!
If it causes knock on delays for half the day NR shouldn't allow it to run in the morning peak.
Agreed in hindsight but is this usual with these sort of services?
That’s why I’m wondering if they’ve just seen an opportunity for this summer only, and it won’t necessarily fit in with the longer term timetable...Difficult to say with this service specifically as this is only the second week it has run. That said we are constantly told that Waterloo is at capacity so it's surprising they have found room for a kettle in the morning peak.
South Western Railway is reporting disruption all morning (until 1000hrs) to and from Waterloo because “earlier today, a train arrived London Waterloo earlier than scheduled”.
How does that work exactly?
That train certainly hadn't arrived in platform 19 by 07.53.Scheduled to arrive at 07:53 assuming this is the correct train: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U55451/2019/06/11/advanced
If it causes knock on delays for half the day NR shouldn't allow it to run in the morning peak.
The train arrived early at Latchmere Jn but still arrived 2 minutes late into Waterloo.That train certainly hadn't arrived in platform 19 by 07.53.
Presumably that's what caused the 07.50 to reading to be effectively cancelled for passengers requiring stations before Staines. It caused quite a lot of other delays for trains that were meant to be going in the Putney direction. I hope this isn't going to be a regular occurrence.
Very informative, thanks. Easy to understand that, (in the absence of such detail), people might intuitively deflect the blame onto the kettle though...Two “disruptive” events occurred:
5Z80 (0553 Southall WCR - Waterloo) was allowed to run 20E, and then held on the Windsor Reversible until 07:42.
This then delayed 2C12 (0609 Reading - Waterloo) by 13 minutes, and then further delayed it at Nine Elms Junction for another 9 minutes - arriving 22 minutes late at WAT.
At the same time, 9B88 (formed of 2x442) was offered a “wrong route” into Platform 9 - as the 442’s are limited as to which platforms they can use at Waterloo - the Signaller, the Service Delivery Controller and Driver all recognised the wrong route and made sure the train did not take it.
The delaying factor on 9B88 would’ve been the route timing out, as it takes about 2-3 minutes to do so.
Now make a conclusion yourselves!
Early-running 5Z80 caused 130 minutes worth of delay.
Wrong route on 9B88 caused 578 minutes worth of delay.
It’s the 442’s that are causing headaches with their routing restrictions, but yes, it would be the same effect, if not worse, as a wrong route taken on an overlength train would clog up Waterloo’s mouth and the associated pointwork.Presumably any train that is misrouted but still caught in time, say a 12 car 450 signalled into a short platform, could cause similar knock-on problems?
The delay was caused by the signaller, if the train had followed its booked path the delays wouldn’t have occurred.They really should remove steam trains from the mainline. Causing delays like this, or swathes of trespassing morons selfishly full of self entitlement.
I hope government take note
They really should remove steam trains from the mainline. Causing delays like this, or swathes of trespassing morons selfishly full of self entitlement.
I hope government take note
They really should remove steam trains from the mainline. Causing delays like this, or swathes of trespassing morons selfishly full of self entitlement.
I hope government take note
Errrrrr no. 2C12 was 12 late start from Wokingham because of a tree down between there and Reading so was already running late (though had caught up some time).Two “disruptive” events occurred:
5Z80 (0553 Southall WCR - Waterloo) was allowed to run 20E, and then held on the Windsor Reversible until 07:42.
This then delayed 2C12 (0609 Reading - Waterloo) by 13 minutes, and then further delayed it at Nine Elms Junction for another 9 minutes - arriving 22 minutes late at WAT.
At the same time, 9B88 (formed of 2x442) was offered a “wrong route” into Platform 9 - as the 442’s are limited as to which platforms they can use at Waterloo - the Signaller, the Service Delivery Controller and Driver all recognised the wrong route and made sure the train did not take it.
The delaying factor on 9B88 would’ve been the route timing out, as it takes about 2-3 minutes to do so.
Now make a conclusion yourselves!
Early-running 5Z80 caused 130 minutes worth of delay.
Wrong route on 9B88 caused 578 minutes worth of delay.
That's what the TRUST report attributed it toErrrrrr no. 2C12 was 12 late start from Wokingham because of a tree down between there and Reading so was already running late (though had caught up some time).
Now make a conclusion yourselves!
Early-running 5Z80 caused 130 minutes worth of delay.
Wrong route on 9B88 caused 578 minutes worth of delay.
It is, though, sheer lunacy to accept a charter at that time of the day into Waterloo. It may well be using the reversible line, but other services - including 2C12 - regularly use that line.
That’s as maybe, but the decision to allow this just illustrates one of the problems with NR. Somewhere in the black hole that is Milton Keynes someone has seen an unused path and thought it would be a good idea to allow it to be used. Presumably someone else then approved it. Meanwhile anyone who has used Waterloo in the morning peak - as I have for many years, often on 2C12 - would see that the decision was madness and just asking for a fiasco.If something is bid to Network Rail and a path is available, NR are not always in a position to reject the bid for contractual reasons. While such an idea was widely thought of as "lunacy", and I can assure you that is a widespread feeling from what I have heard, the cause remained wrong regulation which, if not happened, would not have resulted in significant disruption.