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.
The latter is where we may differ.
Personally, and I emphasise personally, I don't equate driving slower with being relaxed. I prefer to simply obey signals - so if the road is clear I will aim to do line speed, if it's not then I will obey signals accordingly. I find it more of a pain thinking too much about what is going on, and - again personally - I find there's more chance of being caught out if trying to second-guess what's going on around me. That's not to say I won't hang back a little, for example to see signals turning to green in front of me rather than forever running on yellows, but that's about as far as I'll go. If running early I will coast earlier where feasible, but that's about as far as I go.
I'm the same when driving a car - if the road is 60 mph then I find it much more relaxing simply to do 60 mph - *when safe to do so*. Like with a train, I find myself judging speed pretty accurately without having to focus on the speedometer. In turn this allows me to focus more fully on what's going on around me.
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.
I can understand where it's impossible to attain linespeed - I can't imagine anyone would be questioning people on that as it would be rather pointless! As you rightly say, the timetable should allow for that except if the booked traction has been substituted for something slower.
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.
Agreed on all this.
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.
Must admit I don't really buy-in to eco driving. As alluded to above, if running early then I'll coast a little earlier when approaching a braking point - that's about all. I've not experienced a DAS system, however I presume this is largely how they work anyway?
I can run very relaxed most of the time and I can still hit PPM.
Looking at things from a passenger perspective, I'm not interested in PPM. I want the train to be right-time!
(Going off on a tangent, I hate the way that a train running around 5 minutes late suddenly goes to the bottom of the regulating queue. It so frustrating that a small delay will suddenly turn into 20 minutes because every other conceivable train will be given priority once the PPM is considered missed and unrecoverable for the late-running train. I'd prefer the railway to be measured on total overall delay minutes).
The tightness issue is that the timetable seems to be built as perfect with little slack.
Again, from a passenger perspective, I want the journey to be as quick as possible. Taking my local line into London as an example, in the 1990s most off-peak fast trains were timed to reach London in 29 minutes. Nowadays it has tends to be 32 or 33 minutes. Meanwhile in the other direction, the semi-fast trains were timed at 40 minutes in the 1990s, nowadays it's 44 or 45 minutes. With a clear run the 1990s timings were generally achieved, nowadays even with a clear run today's timings are only achieved on about half of journeys. This is with more powerful traction and some line speed improvements since the 1990s! To be fair, in the interim there's been the advent of defensive driving, and never underestimate the impact of OTMR. Station dwell times don't help either, they're a lot longer nowadays, and of course the railway is much more congested now. But none of the latter is of interest to the passenger - they just see their journey as being slower.
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.
I can only speak for my location as that's where I have access to information, however my view is there's little correlation between how fast a driver is and their incident history. In fact, I'd say the drivers I'd regard as the faster ones actually have the better records. Ditto I wouldn't say the slower drivers perform better on paper. Personally I'd say it's more about making the right judgements at the right time.
Slipthroughs often come about due to Drivers making up time;
You may well be right, however again it comes down to judgement. In my view someone who is used to approaching platforms fast will probably have the better judgement as to when they need to wind their neck in. A naturally slower driver who on one particular day is hurrying because they want to finish on time is more likely to be caught out in my view.
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.
Agreed, however I'm not really talking about when running under restrictive aspects, as it's the signals that are holding the train up. My issue is not achieving line speed when the road ahead is clear. QV the previous post and what I said about the comp assurance assessment, running under restrictive aspects I'd expect to be accepted as a perfectly acceptable explanation.
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.
Turnround times is a separate issue, as long as there's platform space available then it's down to how much the powers than be wish to sweat the assets. It goes without saying that increasing turnround times means having more trains out. In the off-peak this could mean one less train is being maintained, and in the peaks there simply may not be enough trains to go round. £££££££££!
We all want to keep to time but we know the constraints.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. At the end of the day the most important thing is maintaining perfect safety whilst putting in one's best effort to maintain the timetable as far as safely possible.
, 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.
