I see that as far as Northern's own delays and cancellations go, 'silly' explanations seem to be creeping in again. One which rears its head with monotonous regularity is the one about 'more trains than usual needing attention at this time'. At 2130? Hardly.
I don't know what the appeal of this particular explanation is, I mean, I'm sure it isn't any more palatable to intending passengers than most others. At least 'shortage of a driver', or 'unavailability of a crew member', are more plausible (and probably true).
Late last night three services that I noticed on journey check on different routes were cancelled due to 'more trains than usual requiring repairs' - I would have thought that they would have had plenty of spare units with all the planned and unplanned cancellations and if there was a problem with the actual unit booked to run the service they would be cancelled due to 'a fault on this train' (I didn't notice any cancelled due to 'more trains than usual requiring repairs' until around 20:00.
I've been told by a Northern manager whose advice I trust that adding the four extra stops to the Leeds - Vic service (eight stops or 16 minutes on a return trip) increases the driving time of the Leeds crews beyond what is permitted. I'm not familiar with these permitted limits, which of course are there for a reason. The question, is could one or two extra stops, rather than four, be accommodated?Yes there are tight turnround times at Victoria but nearly an hour at Leeds, so an extra 8 minutes each way will not affect departure times westbound.
This is about contracts not ownership.I think nationalisation or full privatisation would end up being the best solution (no idea if either will ever happen though)
How can they justify that excuse now?"More trains than usual requiring repairs" is catching on with TOCs now. I recall it being used by GWR last year and it is something I could accept and understand just on an odd occasion. This led to queries about the definition of the terminology "more than usual" as it had appeared day in and day out for months on end.
"More trains than usual requiring repairs" is catching on with TOCs now. I recall it being used by GWR last year and it is something I could accept and understand just on an odd occasion. This led to queries about the definition of the terminology "more than usual" as it had appeared day in and day out for months on end.
Could be, however, I would have thought that 'shortage of train drivers' would be the appropriate excuse here as it is the lack of staff that prevents these trains from being used and not a shortage of rolling stock.Or could it be that there's more trains on depot requiring repair but plenty of stock in sidings. However due to lack of drivers they can't be brought in to use
Could be, however, I would have thought that 'shortage of train drivers' would be the appropriate excuse here as it is the lack of staff that prevents these trains from being used and not a shortage of rolling stock.
I quite often take them with a pinch of salt now - reasonably often I have seen trains cancelled at Manchester Victoria 'due to a shortage of train drivers' when the driver and conductor were sat on the train ready for it to leave!Potentially, but I wouldn't place too much reliance on the reasons given on JourneyCheck as the root cause could be more trains requiring repair
True, but the present system of short franchises has probably been a major factor in these tricky issues continually being shunted into the too difficult category.This is about contracts not ownership.
The 17:55 Lime Street to Oxford Rd was cancelled tonight due to more trains than usual needing repairs. Bit of a bad one to cancel.Late last night three services that I noticed on journey check on different routes were cancelled due to 'more trains than usual requiring repairs' - I would have thought that they would have had plenty of spare units with all the planned and unplanned cancellations and if there was a problem with the actual unit booked to run the service they would be cancelled due to 'a fault on this train' (I didn't notice any cancelled due to 'more trains than usual requiring repairs' until around 20:00.
How can they justify that excuse now?
It is understandable during the leaf-fall season (although it would be nice if there were enough spare trains (and staff) to allow tyre-turning to be done while putting maintenance spare sets out during the day and doing the planned day-maintenance overnight.)
Sadly with the "service" deliverable a long way down the TOC and ROSCOs' priorities it just ain't gonna happen.
They do seem to have a bit of an unfortunate habit of cancelling popular evening peak trains.The 17:55 Lime Street to Oxford Rd was cancelled tonight due to more trains than usual needing repairs. Bit of a bad one to cancel.
They do seem to have a bit of an unfortunate habit of cancelling popular evening peak trains.
Quite often it seems to be all stops between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport that get cancelled due to late running (last minute throughout the day). I hate traveling to/from the stations on this line - I can usually tell that the train isn't going to stop from how late it is expected to be. Today was rather strange as they cancelled the 16:00 Piccadilly (ex-Barrow 13:53) at Burnage, Gatley and Heald Green which was only running 6 minutes late and 3 minutes early by the Airport.Peaks are when the fleet is most stretched. I do wonder if there's a logic which is used to decide which trains are chosen to be cancelled though
Quite often it seems to be all stops between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport that get cancelled due to late running (last minute throughout the day). I hate traveling to/from the stations on this line - I can usually tell that the train isn't going to stop from how late it is expected to be. Today was rather strange as they cancelled the 16:00 Piccadilly (ex-Barrow 13:53) at Burnage, Gatley and Heald Green which was only running 6 minutes late and 3 minutes early by the Airport.
Usually they seem to cancel the Airport line stops around when the train is at Manchester Oxford Road (from personal experience) which may/should then be announced before arrival at Piccadilly - sometimes an announcement is made but it isn't clear that it is running non-stop to the Airport. I wonder if someone didn't realise that it was a Class 195 that was running the service (I assume) which can catch up reasonable amounts of time when stations are a reasonable distance apart.Six minutes late doesn't seem to be disastrous, especially when you consider that the train involved has an extended layover at the Airport. (It's scheduled to leave at 1634, instead of the normal xx.29). Calling at the missed stations may have resulted in the following ex-Cleethorpes TPE being delayed by a couple of minutes, but, there again, a couple of minutes doesn't seem here nor there.
I see that the ex-Barrow actually departed its originating point 17L, and was still 12L by Wigan North Western. Perhaps the decision to skip the Airport line stops was made a little too early.
The above happens a lot, i.e. where a late-running train is authorised to skip stops, but actually finishes up in front of schedule.
Quite often it seems to be all stops between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport that get cancelled due to late running (last minute throughout the day).
I am struggling to see what this has got to do with Sunday cancellations.Here's a good one for you. Today's 2210 Airport - Barrow is coming up as starting from Oxford Road 'due to the late arrival of an inbound service'. The 'inbound service' has only just Lancaster, and it's running six, yes six, minutes late. What's more, it's shown as running through to the Airport!
I am struggling to see what this has got to do with Sunday cancellations.
It hasn't, we've gone a bit off topic. Perhaps we need a thread entitled 'Why are Northern allowed to cancel services any day of the week, seemingly at will'.
(P.S. With reference to post #382, the Barrow - Airport service referred to above been terminated at Oxford Road, despite only being 2L. Reason given crew issues, so perhaps one or both of the crew need a legal break before setting off back.)
Anyone got any predictions for which routes will have planned cancellations this Sunday? There's engineering work on so they can give that as an excuse to cancel trains on lines without any engineering work on which other trains are running!No forward crew, the crew get relieved at Oxford Road, nothing to do with requiring a break.
And re using the “late arrival of inward service” from RTT, it’s not necessarily the lateness but it’s just a “YI” code from Trust, as in a reaction to the previous cancellation/delay.
Anyway, back on topic now!
I quite often take them with a pinch of salt now - reasonably often I have seen trains cancelled at Manchester Victoria 'due to a shortage of train drivers' when the driver and conductor were sat on the train ready for it to leave!
On several occasions I have spoke to the drivers themselves and they have usually said that they were expecting to take the train through and had just come on from a break. I suppose it could be a shortage of drivers at the other end to bring the train back.I presume it can depend on how far the driver you see can take the train. He/she might be expected to change with another driver along the route ; that 2nd driver may not be available. And drivers hours come into it ; as I see it they can only drive a certain number of hours on the routes they have signed.
Been through many of these types of threads but still struggling to understand (as someone not working directly in the industry) why new recruits have to be on exactly the same Ts and Cs as existing ones. There must be many examples of people working side by side doing the same job who for historic reasons dating back to the time they were first employed have, say, different travel facilities, pensions or salaries. I appreciate it would complicate things for rostering/diagramming but what other reasons are there? Not intending to be union-bashing, just genuinely want to understand.