Severe delays “because a train arrived too early”

700007 · 12 Jun 2019

The steam train itself didn't cause the incident. It was a wrong decision taken by the signaller that did. It may have been an ECS electric passenger train coming from Clapham Yard perhaps that had just as many restrictions that could have ultimately caused this.

It does show how much at capacity London Waterloo is, but the situation definitely could have been handled and communicated better.

It is a bit of a hit to their already poor reputation when they are notoriously known among commuters for running trains late all the time and that the delay to the journey was caused by one train running early.

RailUK Forums

ABDeltic · 12 Jun 2019

43096 said:
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.

Had I been on 2C12 (or 2C86 behind it) this morning (fortunately I wasn’t) I would be absolutely furious that some cretin at NR had thought it a good idea to schedule a kettle jolly at the height of the morning peak. The sooner proper, experienced railway operators get a grip on NR the better - which is why it is good to see the likes of Andrew Haines and Tim Shoveller (who both know what it is like on South West Division) now in senior roles there.

This may be a bit controversial but my experience of NR is that they will move mountains to get steam or other cranky workings through ignoring the bread and butter daily services. It happens on the Kent network with the British Pullman

Dren Ahmeti · 12 Jun 2019

700007 said:
The steam train itself didn't cause the incident. It was a wrong decision taken by the signaller that did. It may have been an ECS electric passenger train coming from Clapham Yard perhaps that had just as many restrictions that could have ultimately caused this.

There's no need to speak in hypotheticals about it.

Windsor-side delays were caused by the Kettle.
Main-side delays were caused by the Flying Pig.

All in a day's work for Wimbledon panel!
:rolleyes:

infobleep · 12 Jun 2019

700007 said:
The steam train itself didn't cause the incident. It was a wrong decision taken by the signaller that did. It may have been an ECS electric passenger train coming from Clapham Yard perhaps that had just as many restrictions that could have ultimately caused this.

It does show how much at capacity London Waterloo is, but the situation definitely could have been handled and communicated better.

It is a bit of a hit to their already poor reputation when they are notoriously known among commuters for running trains late all the time and that the delay to the journey was caused by one train running early.

I wasn't travelling that morning. What was the issue with the communications and handling?

infobleep · 12 Jun 2019

Timrud said:
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

43096 said:
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.

43096 said:
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.

Had I been on 2C12 (or 2C86 behind it) this morning (fortunately I wasn’t) I would be absolutely furious that some cretin at NR had thought it a good idea to schedule a kettle jolly at the height of the morning peak. The sooner proper, experienced railway operators get a grip on NR the better - which is why it is good to see the likes of Andrew Haines and Tim Shoveller (who both know what it is like on South West Division) now in senior roles there.

Is it shear lunacy to allow 442 workings on the mainline due to the opportunity for them to be given a wrong route, what with all the platform restrictions? After all the 442 caused more delays.

700007 · 12 Jun 2019

infobleep said:
I wasn't travelling that morning. What was the issue with the communications and handling?

Lots of customers were complaining about the use of 'operational incident' yesterday morning and not giving any further information about these incidents. To be honest, even I don't like that term being used unless there's genuinely nothing else that can be used. Too opaque for my liking. In both situations, I wonder if 'signalling problem' would have been more appropriate? It doesn't explicitly say that it is a signal failure, but more a problem in regards to signalling and decisions made around that yesterday morning.

bhb · 12 Jun 2019

from a purely selfish point of view, the steam train, scheduled for a morning peak hour arrival/departure at Waterloo did cause me major delay. And was totally unnecessary. The issue with a 442 in what is effectively another station would also have been annoying, but, less annoying, as it was an actual train, doing what I'd generally expect trains at 8ish in the morning to do at Waterloo.

bhb · 12 Jun 2019

infobleep said:
I wasn't travelling that morning. What was the issue with the communications and handling?

I was travelling on Tuesday morning. There were no communications to the hapless passengers trying to get to places like Feltham, Brentford, Hounslow etc. Obviously, it seems that it's more important to run a steam train, rather than carry normal passengers to those places.

infobleep · 12 Jun 2019

bhb said:
I was travelling on Tuesday morning. There were no communications to the hapless passengers trying to get to places like Feltham, Brentford, Hounslow etc. Obviously, it seems that it's more important to run a steam train, rather than carry normal passengers to those places.

The thing is SWR weren't running the steam engine.

43096 · 12 Jun 2019

infobleep said:
Is it shear lunacy to allow 442 workings on the mainline due to the opportunity for them to be given a wrong route, what with all the platform restrictions? After all the 442 caused more delays.

It’s not exactly very bright and clever is it? You do wonder what SWR have been doing - they’re getting on for 2 years into the franchise and stuff likes this still seems to surprise them as if gauging is something new.

infobleep · 12 Jun 2019

700007 said:
Lots of customers were complaining about the use of 'operational incident' yesterday morning and not giving any further information about these incidents. To be honest, even I don't like that term being used unless there's genuinely nothing else that can be used. Too opaque for my liking. In both situations, I wonder if 'signalling problem' would have been more appropriate? It doesn't explicitly say that it is a signal failure, but more a problem in regards to signalling and decisions made around that yesterday morning.

That seems to be a policy decision by someone or some people in SWR. It lead to another thread I created recently on terminology.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/terminology-used-operational-incident-or-train-derailed.183721/

infobleep · 12 Jun 2019

43096 said:
It’s not exactly very bright and clever is it? You do wonder what SWR have been doing - they’re getting on for 2 years into the franchise and stuff likes this still seems to surprise them as if gauging is something new.

Do you know if the train was diagramed to using platform 9 by SWR or whether it was a mistake by a NR signaller?

bb21 · 13 Jun 2019

No, 442s are not booked a platform as they are running under VSTP arrangements.

infobleep · 13 Jun 2019

bb21 said:
No, 442s are not booked a platform as they are running under VSTP arrangements.

Thanks. That means the mistake surely doesn't lie with SWR. People are human and mistakes can't always be avoided is my take on this and it would be unfair for others to say SWR should get their act togethwe2ocer issues like this.

Of course the matter of communication to passengers is within their control and something tbey should always look to improvement where possible. They don't always get this right.

Deepgreen · 13 Jun 2019

43096 said:
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).

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.

According to RTT, 'Windsor side' services were disrupted long before the steam ECS appeared.

"Sheer lunacy" to accept a charter train? Is it also "lunacy" to, say, accept 442s with their very restrictive platform availability? Signallers are there to ensure that the booked trains run as planned, and it has been acknowledged by NR that this was the issue(s) here. I don't understand the anti-steam/charter sentiments shown here - the railway remains at least flexible enough to accommodate some variations within the available pathing system and there's no reason why, say, a charter train cannot be run as planned, peak or off-peak, if the train itself has no faults. I, for one, don't want a railway where there is no room for 'open access'.

Deepgreen · 13 Jun 2019

43096 said:
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.

Had I been on 2C12 (or 2C86 behind it) this morning (fortunately I wasn’t) I would be absolutely furious that some cretin at NR had thought it a good idea to schedule a kettle jolly at the height of the morning peak. The sooner proper, experienced railway operators get a grip on NR the better - which is why it is good to see the likes of Andrew Haines and Tim Shoveller (who both know what it is like on South West Division) now in senior roles there.

Yes - proper railway operators would have no problem accommodating a charter at any time, as long as the path is there and the planning is sound. Again - there is nothing wrong with the principle, and it worked fine last week. Any train can, for example, be mis-routed by signallers, and any train can therefore cause disruption. I would imagine that charter operators are desperate to avoid errors on their part and are acutely aware of the need for operating excellence, because they know that their whole business is in the balance, rather than just a single job. The charter operation was not to blame, or the cause of the disruption.

43096 · 13 Jun 2019

Deepgreen said:
According to RTT, 'Windsor side' services were disrupted long before the steam ECS appeared.

"Sheer lunacy" to accept a charter train? Is it also "lunacy" to, say, accept 442s with their very restrictive platform availability? Signallers are there to ensure that the booked trains run as planned, and it has been acknowledged by NR that this was the issue(s) here. I don't understand the anti-steam/charter sentiments shown here - the railway remains at least flexible enough to accommodate some variations within the available pathing system and there's no reason why, say, a charter train cannot be run as planned, peak or off-peak, if the train itself has no faults. I, for one, don't want a railway where there is no room for 'open access'.

I have already answered that on 442s.

I also have no issue with the principle of running charters - kettles or otherwise - but they need to be at sensible times. This isn’t Zürich where they have infrastructure capacity and operating disciplines so can run extras at peak times; it’s Waterloo where capacity is basically maxed out; running charters in the middle of the peak just should not be allowed to happen.

Deepgreen · 13 Jun 2019

Dren Ahmeti said:
There's no need to speak in hypotheticals about it.

Windsor-side delays were caused by the Kettle.
Main-side delays were caused by the Flying Pig.

All in a day's work for Wimbledon panel!

If your assumptions are correct, why was the Windsor side disrupted long before the charter appeared on the scene? Also, did you mean; 'Plastic Pig'. When using silly nick-names, at least get them right. The use of the term "Kettle" so much here is very strange - is there really so little regard for the heritage of the present-day railway that it is to be derided like this? Once again, neither type of train caused delays - errors by signallers did, at least according to NR, and I think we can can assume that their public acceptance of blame is pretty compelling.

Deepgreen · 13 Jun 2019

43096 said:
I have already answered that on 442s.

I also have no issue with the principle of running charters - kettles or otherwise - but they need to be at sensible times. This isn’t Zürich where they have infrastructure capacity and operating disciplines so can run extras at peak times; it’s Waterloo where capacity is basically maxed out; running charters in the middle of the peak just should not be allowed to happen.

0750 - 0800 is not the middle of the peak; 0830-0845 is. Again, a charter is just a train like any other - it runs on the track in an assigned path, it arrives (empty) at a platform, it takes on passengers and leaves again, within about ten minutes - just like any other train. It was planned to work and it worked fine last week. There were no delays this week attributed to the charter itself (or, I assume, the 442s). If capacity is "maxed out" as you put it, how was the path made available? Capacity has, of course, also just been increased significantly at Waterloo with the long-overdue International terminal conversion. The same issue seems not to have happened at Victoria (where capacity has not been increased), where some charters run on the peaks' shoulders (with much longer platform occupancy times) - perhaps if a signaller error occurs there we will see a similar explosion of vitriol.

infobleep · 13 Jun 2019

43096 said:
I have already answered that on 442s.

I also have no issue with the principle of running charters - kettles or otherwise - but they need to be at sensible times. This isn’t Zürich where they have infrastructure capacity and operating disciplines so can run extras at peak times; it’s Waterloo where capacity is basically maxed out; running charters in the middle of the peak just should not be allowed to happen.

Clearly it isn't maxed out at Waterloo as South Western Railway wanted to run even more trains and I'm not sure if the current timetable even reaches the maximum number they wished to run in the proposed timetable consultation. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Dren Ahmeti · 13 Jun 2019

Deepgreen said:
If your assumptions are correct, why was the Windsor side disrupted long before the charter appeared on the scene? Also, did you mean; 'Plastic Pig'. When using silly nick-names, at least get them right. The use of the term "Kettle" so much here is very strange - is there really so little regard for the heritage of the present-day railway that it is to be derided like this? Once again, neither type of train caused delays - errors by signallers did, at least according to NR, and I think we can can assume that their public acceptance of blame is pretty compelling.

My “assumptions” are fact, as they are based off of the TRUST reports for these incidents.

I’m under no obligation to use the correct Enthusiast nickname for these units - I have more important things to do than actually remember what people call them, so I chose the name that came to me the time - I’ll refer to them as “The Mayflower” and “Class 442/ 5WES” if it offends your sensibilities so much!
I take offence to your point that I supposedly have no regard for the heritage of the railways - if you were a driver/signaller/part of control when the Flying Scotsman caused havoc through the whole Midlands, you’d know it’s high time to start considering removing some high-profile steam engines off the mainline, if grown men and women cannot control themselves!

Of course, none of the trains themselves caused the delay, I’ve made that clear; how would you rather me refer to each incident? It’s much easier to refer to the locomotives/stock, rather than “the 442 being routed into a platform it can’t take” and the “steam charter being let out of West London Junction too early.”

swt_passenger · 13 Jun 2019

infobleep said:
Clearly it isn't maxed out at Waterloo as South Western Railway wanted to run even more trains and I'm not sure if the current timetable even reaches the maximum number they wished to run in the proposed timetable consultation. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Surely we know from previous discussions the present timetable isn’t anywhere near the maximum number, because there is only one 442 operating in service? Surely the ‘maximum’ planned will only be able to appear with the future Dec 2019 timetable, which is supposedly the one consulted on and announced for Dec 2018, but was then pulled by Network Rail?

swt_passenger · 13 Jun 2019

Deepgreen said:
According to RTT, 'Windsor side' services were disrupted long before the steam ECS appeared.

As mentioned there was also an earlier obstruction on the line (a tree down) that had already affected the service startup at the Reading end. A few up trains entered service having reversed at Wokingham.

talltim · 13 Jun 2019

SWT_USER said:
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.

Surely its NR's fault for signalling it in too early, rather than what sort of train is is or who runs it?

SWT_USER · 13 Jun 2019

talltim said:
Surely its NR's fault for signalling it in too early, rather than what sort of train is is or who runs it?

Absolutely, clearly the signaller hadn't had their coffee yet that morning.

However, still think it's madness to allow a charter in to Waterloo in the morning peak. If there are spare paths (which again is surprising given we're told Waterloo is at capacity) then SWR should be using them for extra services.

158756 · 13 Jun 2019

SWT_USER said:
Absolutely, clearly the signaller hadn't had their coffee yet that morning.

However, still think it's madness to allow a charter in to Waterloo in the morning peak. If there are spare paths (which again is surprising given we're told Waterloo is at capacity) then SWR should be using them for extra services.

Can Network Rail make that decision? If the paths exist and SWR haven't applied for them I thought Network Rail had to consider open access equally rather than reserving paths for SWR.

EM2 · 13 Jun 2019

SWT_USER said:
Absolutely, clearly the signaller hadn't had their coffee yet that morning.

However, still think it's madness to allow a charter in to Waterloo in the morning peak. If there are spare paths (which again is surprising given we're told Waterloo is at capacity) then SWR should be using them for extra services.

SWR should bid for them if they want to use them but they might not have the resources (such as stock, or staff) to cover additional services.

pompeyfan · 13 Jun 2019

Just because the path exists from Longhedge junction, doesn’t mean it necessarily exists without conflict through to Hounslow/Twickenham and further.

30907 · 13 Jun 2019

bhb said:
I was travelling on Tuesday morning. There were no communications to the hapless passengers trying to get to places like Feltham, Brentford, Hounslow etc.

...all of whose trains ran with (on a quick check) maximum delay 15 minutes or so.

infobleep · 13 Jun 2019

swt_passenger said:
Surely we know from previous discussions the present timetable isn’t anywhere near the maximum number, because there is only one 442 operating in service? Surely the ‘maximum’ planned will only be able to appear with the future Dec 2019 timetable, which is supposedly the one consulted on and announced for Dec 2018, but was then pulled by Network Rail?

Indeed, which means any talk of the station being at full capacity isn't correct.

Severe delays “because a train arrived too early”

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member