A Tube train can make its station call within 20 seconds at a National Rail station. Why is the dispatch procedure of some other trains so long?

[pelli]

Meanwhile apparently on some metro lines, trains slowing to a crawl before stopping, a 10-second wait before doors open, and later a 30-second wait after doors closing before wheels start to turn is routine:

(Video showing a Shanghai Metro Line 2 train arriving and departing Lujiazui Station, including the departure procedure where the driver steps out of the cab, closes the train doors, closes the platform edge doors, checks carefully that the platform-train interface is clear, and returns to the cab before departing.)

 

[ComUtoR]

There's a lot of potential 'quick wins' going to waste

Such as ?

 

[Starmill]

Operating methods are designed, and train procurement undertaken, with little or no consideration of the performance impacts.

There's a lot of potential 'quick wins' going to waste, and a pervasive attitude of "this is how it's always been done" in many quarters. But such sloppiness is simply tolerated because there is effectively no incentive to challenge it.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to explain.

Although whether it's true sloppiness or simply the bizarre incentives we all experience in the industry depends on precisely your point of view.

 

[cactustwirly]

Such as ?

Driver open, guard close for one (or full DOO)

The SWR metro is a lot slower at releasing doors than Southern and Great Northern for example, where the driver is releasing the doors.

 

[tbtc]

Lots of people use trains/buses when in London who wouldn't regularly in the rest of the UK because they can trust the London experience

I've banged on about the platform/train interface before, so apologies for going over old ground, but this is such an important and overlooked issue

We all know how it works, we know how long the train should generally be, we know where to stand, we know the protocol

Put yourself in the shoes of an infrequent traveller though. Someone who doesn't know the railway that well and isn't obsessively tracking their service on Real Time Trains before it arrives

They don't know how long the train will be or where on the platform their carriage will come to a halt (or which end First Class will be etc), so they crowd the area in the middle of the platform near the staircase and wait for it to pull in, only then realising that it stretches some distance along the platform so they need to dash best part of a hundred metres along to the right door, causing the platform dwell to have to be a lot longer than usual

Even some regular passengers will be reluctant to leave the sheltered canopy in the centre of the platform for the "exposed" ends until the train arrives

But on the London Underground, you know that the train will generally occupy the full platform length, you know it's fine to spread along the platform, you know you can board any door and always walk along the train if it's too busy in the first doorway - given that a large proportion of travel takes place underground or in sheltered stations you don't have to worry about being rained on - you can trust the experience - it's simple

So if I was involved in stations I'd be looking at how to improve things here - signs showing where trains are expected to come to a halt - ensuring that the "screens" at stations clearly show how long the train will be and which end First Class will be at - consistent stopping places for certain lengths of train - so the melee of passengers becomes a thing of the past

Imagine how much faster trains would be if people know where the door would open and were waiting at the right point on the platform?

I'm not saying we could do twenty second dwells but things could be a lot smoother and we'd help the unconfident irregular passengers too - it can't be easy being one of a hundred people on a platform trying to work out where to stand etc

When this latest “great idea” gets shot down there’ll probably be a proposal next month to run intercity stock on the tube...

It was only a couple of days ago that there was a suggestion for an eight track tunnel under London to link the ECML and GWML services, so that you could take an 801 from the "West End" to Paddington or Liverpool Street...

 

[miklcct]

Lots of people use trains/buses when in London who wouldn't regularly in the rest of the UK because they can trust the London experience

I've banged on about the platform/train interface before, so apologies for going over old ground, but this is such an important and overlooked issue

We all know how it works, we know how long the train should generally be, we know where to stand, we know the protocol

Put yourself in the shoes of an infrequent traveller though. Someone who doesn't know the railway that well and isn't obsessively tracking their service on Real Time Trains before it arrives

They don't know how long the train will be or where on the platform their carriage will come to a halt (or which end First Class will be etc), so they crowd the area in the middle of the platform near the staircase and wait for it to pull in, only then realising that it stretches some distance along the platform so they need to dash best part of a hundred metres along to the right door, causing the platform dwell to have to be a lot longer than usual

Even some regular passengers will be reluctant to leave the sheltered canopy in the centre of the platform for the "exposed" ends until the train arrives

But on the London Underground, you know that the train will generally occupy the full platform length, you know it's fine to spread along the platform, you know you can board any door and always walk along the train if it's too busy in the first doorway - given that a large proportion of travel takes place underground or in sheltered stations you don't have to worry about being rained on - you can trust the experience - it's simple

So if I was involved in stations I'd be looking at how to improve things here - signs showing where trains are expected to come to a halt - ensuring that the "screens" at stations clearly show how long the train will be and which end First Class will be at - consistent stopping places for certain lengths of train - so the melee of passengers becomes a thing of the past

Imagine how much faster trains would be if people know where the door would open and were waiting at the right point on the platform?

In Hong Kong in the 90s, that kind of "platform dash" actually existed when 9-car and 12-car trains served the same line, and a TV programme about the train service mentioned this as well. The rail company did a series of service improvement, which included putting a staff on the platform at the end position of the 9-car train, showing how long the next train would be. All trains on that line were unified to be 12-car long eventually as demand increased, but now it's returning to 9-car due to line extension where a 12-car platform can't be built. In modern era, the displays can do this job, however, stickers were put along the whole length of the platform showing which carriage a 12-car or a 9-car train would be at that part of the platform.

I have seen none of these in the UK, so it's a blind guess if the train is not a full-length train. I would appreciate such stickers at every platform where not all trains serving it are of the same length.

 

[Watershed]

Such as ?

Where trains are guard operated - installing stop boards, positioned such that the guard knows the train is correctly accommodated if they can see them from their standard dispatch position (rear cab, middle cab, panel in the middle of the train, wherever). And then accordingly modifying operating procedures so that guards do not need to step down onto the platform before releasing the doors.

Station facility operators should collaborate with operators to ensure consistent stopping positions (adding stop markers where none currently exist for the stock commonly used). They should provide signage to indicate where each coach will be positioned, for example through dividing platforms into zones or numbers, with train formations illustrated on the PIS - or simply providing fixed signs saying "wait here for coach X" (though obviously this doesn't work everywhere).

In the medium term, operators should negotiate with traincrew (and modify their fleets where required) to allow for driver door release. And possibly also driver door close, although that's obviously much more contentious.

In the long run, beacons should be fitted to all station platforms (and trains modified accordingly), so that there is no potential for human error in terms of wrong side release or stop short etc. This would allow doors to be released virtually instantly, if not automatically upon stopping in the correct position.

Operators could also investigate the feasibility of modifying door systems to make them quicker. For example by opening as soon as release is given, if the 'door open' button was pressed in the previous 20 seconds. Or replacing slow pneumatic mechanisms with faster electric ones.

None of this is impossible - and indeed DOO operators in suburban London show that it's all perfectly possible. There is just no desire to tighten things up, and no recognition that shorter dwell times are achievable and desirable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bit like the bus industry!

I would say there needs to be a national standard for platform position markers so it is the same everywhere, then people will be used to it.

With regard to LU there are some sillies, such as on the top of the Circle you get "please use the full length of the platform" on the PA and then in comes an S7 which doesn't do anything of the sort.

Where uniform stock is used, it would also really help to mark the door positions on the platform. Not many places where it would be possible, but it would on most of LU and Merseyrail (once it is all 777s) as well as Thameslink, where they did it but put them in the wrong place!

 

[ComUtoR]

Where trains are guard operated - installing stop boards, positioned such that the guard knows the train is correctly accommodated if they can see them from their standard dispatch position (rear cab, middle cab, panel in the middle of the train, wherever). And then accordingly modifying operating procedures so that guards do not need to step down onto the platform before releasing the doors.

This happens with route knowledge but as I'm not a Guard I think I will leave this. However, additional stop boards isn't a good solution. Stations with cluttered infrastructure increases risk and increases the PTI procedures.

Station facility operators should collaborate with operators to ensure consistent stopping positions (adding stop markers where none currently exist for the stock commonly used). They should provide signage to indicate where each coach will be positioned, for example through dividing platforms into zones or numbers, with train formations illustrated on the PIS - or simply providing fixed signs saying "wait here for coach X" (though obviously this doesn't work everywhere).

Again, clutter is bad. Consistent stopping positions I'd support as it is helpful in the long term but its not as easy as you would think. Infrastructure really does constrain where trains can stop. If all trains were the same length and had the AWS/TPWS in the same place that would help. But those small differences can dramatically change where a unit can stop and that is before you add differences in PRM Door locations etc.

In the medium term, operators should negotiate with traincrew (and modify their fleets where required) to allow for driver door release. And possibly also driver door close, although that's obviously much more contentious.

And in all honesty is a poor solution. Irrespective of the DOO debate. The door release may appear quicker on paper but in reality it isn't. It also slows down the entire process rather than speeds things up. DOO makes Drivers risk averse and introduces very restrictive PDPs.

In the long run, beacons should be fitted to all station platforms (and trains modified accordingly), so that there is no potential for human error in terms of wrong side release or stop short etc. This would allow doors to be released virtually instantly, if not automatically upon stopping in the correct position.

Yes, maybe.. What happens is we switch from a human error to technical errors. CSDE is good but not perfect. Same with SDO. They are also still heavily reliant on the human up the front. We have SDO beacons and its still possible to stop short and pop the doors open. If this was further automated then the risk just skyrockets and becomes a danger. I've driven better forms of SDO/CSDE in 'The Core' section and works as you describe. Its good but still has various errors that would need to be overcome before any real widespread implementation. You also have to realise that the other issue is where these systems do exist. We are now in a position where there are too many bespoke options for each train/unit/station. 'The Railway' is really dumb when it comes to technology.

Operators could also investigate the feasibility of modifying door systems to make them quicker. For example by opening as soon as release is given, if the 'door open' button was pressed in the previous 20 seconds. Or replacing slow pneumatic mechanisms with faster electric ones.

Modifications I'm unsure of the possibilities but driving Desiro's shows how this works and it is a much better system.

None of this is impossible - and indeed DOO operators in suburban London show that it's all perfectly possible. There is just no desire to tighten things up, and no recognition that shorter dwell times are achievable and desirable.

I think this is just flat out false. New units are far improved from previous iterations. The issue is that it is just the usual glacial pace movement of the railway. Working with new units prove that there is a desire to improve. Again, PTI was a huge deciding factor for the Thameslink Core.

TLA's

DOO - Driver only operation
PTI - Platform Train Interface
SDO - Selective Door Operation
CSDE - Correct side door enable
PDP - Professional Driving policy
PRM - Persons of reduced mobility
AWS - Automatic Warning System
TPWS - Train Protection and Warning System
TLA - Three Letter Acronym (yes I'm aware)

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Forgive me if this is a very sheltered view, but ever station I've worked across WMR/LNWR has stop boards, and stations with 12 car working has markers on the platforms for cab position to help with whether the train is fully accommodated. Is this rare across a lot of the network?

Also, let's not turn this into a DOO/DCO discussion, there's many of those already!
With 13 short stop reports in the last 6 months at our TOC, we definitely don't want that

We have 30 seconds from arrival to dispatch, which is enough as most stations so I'm not sure decreasing that to 20 seconds will really make any improvement given the majority of delays on my services are due to being held for late running Avanti trains!

 

[Kingspanner]

Whilst door sequence times depend on stock type one of the biggest anomalies across the mainline network is largely down to who controls the doors of course. On SWR, and other operators, the nonsense that the guard has to get out of the cab and check the platform sticks 5-8secs on dwell time before you start. Contrast that with operators that still retain guards at least giving the driver the control of door release where its 1-2secs. Its also perfectly feasible on a 700 to achieve 20secs with there high speed doors, on board camera systems and well trained drivers. The schedule generally don't demand it but certainly helps when service is perturbated.

Why guards check the platform before departure in the way they do is down to the well known case of Georgia Varley at James Street whose fair and considered RAIB report has been mentioned many times on this forum before https://assets.publishing.service.g...0b60241000163/R222012_121015_James_Street.pdf
Perhaps less well known is the very harsh BTP Investigator's assessment of the case which is less sympathetic to say the least. It can be found in this document https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...otection/homicide/homicide-journal/?s=journal at page 73.
I once had a conversation with a TPE guard about why they check the platform on arrival, and he said that you never know what is going on. He gave two examples, one of an open manhole cover on a platform which passengers could have fallen down if he had opened the doors, and a mass brawl on the platform at Dewsbury which he and his passengers observed from the safety of the train with the doors locked.

 

[Watershed]

This happens with route knowledge but as I'm not a Guard I think I will leave this. However, additional stop boards isn't a good solution. Stations with cluttered infrastructure increases risk and increases the PTI procedures.

I'm not convinced by that. But it needn't be stop boards, it could be anything that is uniquely identifying for the guard, be it a stripe on a roof column, a sign mounted parallel with the platform, whatever. As @SCDR_WMR says, it already exists in part of the network - why shouldn't it be rolled out more widely?

Again, clutter is bad. Consistent stopping positions I'd support as it is helpful in the long term but its not as easy as you would think. Infrastructure really does constrain where trains can stop. If all trains were the same length and had the AWS/TPWS in the same place that would help. But those small differences can dramatically change where a unit can stop and that is before you add differences in PRM Door locations etc.

A little bit of collaborative effort and forethought would prevent most of these issues. Of course that's severely lacking in much of the industry, hence why we end up in messy situations such as we find ourselves in today.

And in all honesty is a poor solution. Irrespective of the DOO debate. The door release may appear quicker on paper but in reality it isn't. It also slows down the entire process rather than speeds things up. DOO makes Drivers risk averse and introduces very restrictive PDPs.

That may be your impression but I'm sorry to say it simply doesn't reflect the reality on the ground, at least not in most of the country. Release times are demonstrably quicker with driver release, by about 5 seconds or so. Some operators have endured long strikes over it - they've not introduced it for fun and games.

PDPs should be proportionately written but again, the current setup favours excessive caution as there is still significant scope for human error (which operators will be blamed for), and little incentive to improve performance.

Yes, maybe.. What happens is we switch from a human error to technical errors. CSDE is good but not perfect. Same with SDO. They are also still heavily reliant on the human up the front. We have SDO beacons and its still possible to stop short and pop the doors open. If this was further automated then the risk just skyrockets and becomes a danger. I've driven better forms of SDO/CSDE in 'The Core' section and works as you describe. Its good but still has various errors that would need to be overcome before any real widespread implementation. You also have to realise that the other issue is where these systems do exist. We are now in a position where there are too many bespoke options for each train/unit/station. 'The Railway' is really dumb when it comes to technology.

Well designed beacon systems should only release those doors that are platformed, in the event of a stop short. It's a fudge if it works any other way.

There should be more standardisation so that there could be one beacon that works for all fleets. If we're being realistic, that's unlikely to happen - but it needn't be an impediment to the wider rollout of beacons.

There will always be technical errors but it is better to have these than human error.

I think this is just flat out false. New units are far improved from previous iterations. The issue is that it is just the usual glacial pace movement of the railway. Working with new units prove that there is a desire to improve. Again, PTI was a huge deciding factor for the Thameslink Core.

In most cases they are better just by chance (e.g. because a particular feature is standard on that manufacturer's units), not through any deliberate decision. That needs to change.

Is this rare across a lot of the network?

Sadly, yes.

 

[Starmill]

I would say there needs to be a national standard for platform position markers so it is the same everywhere, then people will be used to it.

The new design that has been rolled out by Southeastern, to nearly every single station they serve, is very good. I don't immediately have a picture to hand but I'll try to get one later, or I'd be very grateful if anyone else has one and could post it. If you haven't seen it it's a large blue board with the appropriate stop written on it, and a corner facing the driver's cab with the stop mark repeated in small text, so that the driver can see it for confirmation even if the front of their train is level with the board. These have replaced the tangled array of previous stop boards including the small black ones which are common-ish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why guards check the platform before departure in the way they do is down to the well known case of Georgia Varley at James Street whose fair and considered RAIB report has been mentioned many times on this forum before https://assets.publishing.service.g...0b60241000163/R222012_121015_James_Street.pdf
Perhaps less well known is the very harsh BTP Investigator's assessment of the case which is less sympathetic to say the least. It can be found in this document https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...otection/homicide/homicide-journal/?s=journal at page 73.
I once had a conversation with a TPE guard about why they check the platform on arrival, and he said that you never know what is going on. He gave two examples, one of an open manhole cover on a platform which passengers could have fallen down if he had opened the doors, and a mass brawl on the platform at Dewsbury which he and his passengers observed from the safety of the train with the doors locked.

Time can be saved from this sort of thing by using driver release, as the driver is likely to see hazards on entering the platform. Maybe not an open manhole cover, but certainly risks involving passengers or other obvious things like a fire.

 

[Horizon22]

I have seen, and been on trains, where there as been a minute or under stop, when train running late etc, though this seems to be on shorter 5 car or less train. So would say that the longer the train, longer it takes to dispatch, and also down to the time, between the ding ding for ready to leave, and when the doors actually shut.

Some timetables do have a bit of slack yes in terms of pathing / performance or engineering allowance. Many dwells might be 60 - 90 seconds but if the platform is quiet, it could be done safely in less. In normal running obviously there’s not the same pressure and you just wait to leave at departure time.

 

[Jim the Jim]

At the other end of the scale from the tube you have trains like those used by Eurostar, with doors only at one end of the carriage. These hang around for ages at stations, but they don't stop at that many and in the context of a long journey a long stop isn't that big a deal. Meanwhile fewer doors mean more space for things like seats, luggage racks and toilets (in short supply on Tube stock, but harder to do without on an international service).

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Maybe it's a generational shift in expectations - people are so used to having having right now that the merest delay in doors opening should be deemed an issue. If you plan to get somewhere exactly at the time you need to be there for, no matter what mode of transportation you use, you're quite probably going to be late one in a while.

What difference does a few seconds really make to an individual? For conductors/guards/drivers it's the difference to potentially loosing their jobs if an incident happens that they should've noticed had they done their job correctly.

Patience is a very rare thing it seems, people can't wait for door buttons to illuminate before bashing them (both inside and out), then complain that the train departed 2 minutes late due to queues at a few doors when others sit there unused.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe it's a generational shift in expectations - people are so used to having having right now that the merest delay in doors opening should be deemed an issue. If you plan to get somewhere exactly at the time you need to be there for, no matter what mode of transportation you use, you're quite probably going to be late one in a while.

What difference does a few seconds really make to an individual? For conductors/guards/drivers it's the difference to potentially loosing their jobs if an incident happens that they should've noticed had they done their job correctly.

Patience is a very rare thing it seems, people can't wait for door buttons to illuminate before bashing them (both inside and out), then complain that the train departed 2 minutes late due to queues at a few doors when others sit there unused.

I take it you're not familiar with slam door operations? The doors would be open before the train had even stopped. So no, expectations haven't shifted - people are just in a hurry!

But it doesn't just affect individuals, it affects overall journey times too. An example I've used before is that installing hustle alarms on Merseyrail stock necessitated adding two minutes to the Ormskirk-Liverpool running time. At some point that ends up tipping into requiring an extra unit diagram...

 

[MagicMonkey]

I have seen, and been on trains, where there as been a minute or under stop, when train running late etc, though this seems to be on shorter 5 car or less train. So would say that the longer the train, longer it takes to dispatch, and also down to the time, between the ding ding for ready to leave, and when the doors actually shut.

I think you'll find the doors need to be closed before the 'ding ding' can be given, unless the door isn't included on the interlock loop!

I'd say a more accurate assumption is how long it takes for the driver to give said 'ding ding' back and then draw power to get underway!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I think you'll find the doors need to be closed before the 'ding ding' can be given, unless the door isn't included on the interlock loop!

I'd say a more accurate assumption is how long it takes for the driver to give said 'ding ding' back and then draw power to get underway!

I presume they are on about DCO units, guard giving 1-2 to tell the driver to close doors

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume they are on about DCO units, guard giving 1-2 to tell the driver to close doors

Ten bell is certainly an immense waste of time.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Ten bell is certainly an immense waste of time.

Is there anything you don't find a waste of time?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there anything you don't find a waste of time?

Well, any unnecessary step in a door-release or dispatch procedure - i.e. one that does not provide a specific tangible safety benefit - is a waste of time. Fast, efficient operation benefits everyone.

Ten-bell is slower than conventional guard dispatch, so should be removed by providing proper guard controls.

 

[bramling]

Why guards check the platform before departure in the way they do is down to the well known case of Georgia Varley at James Street whose fair and considered RAIB report has been mentioned many times on this forum before https://assets.publishing.service.g...0b60241000163/R222012_121015_James_Street.pdf
Perhaps less well known is the very harsh BTP Investigator's assessment of the case which is less sympathetic to say the least. It can be found in this document https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...otection/homicide/homicide-journal/?s=journal at page 73.
I once had a conversation with a TPE guard about why they check the platform on arrival, and he said that you never know what is going on. He gave two examples, one of an open manhole cover on a platform which passengers could have fallen down if he had opened the doors, and a mass brawl on the platform at Dewsbury which he and his passengers observed from the safety of the train with the doors locked.

Without going too far on this, the way the RAIB report was embargoed remains of considerable concern to me. So the police investigating officer didn’t like the findings of a specialist accident investigator, so rather than allowing everyone access to this at the trial to inform their deliberations, he sought to suppress it. That is pretty concerning to be honest.

 

[Starmill]

Why guards check the platform before departure in the way they do is down to the well known case of Georgia Varley at James Street whose fair and considered RAIB report has been mentioned many times on this forum before https://assets.publishing.service.g...0b60241000163/R222012_121015_James_Street.pdf
Perhaps less well known is the very harsh BTP Investigator's assessment of the case which is less sympathetic to say the least. It can be found in this document https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...otection/homicide/homicide-journal/?s=journal at page 73.
I once had a conversation with a TPE guard about why they check the platform on arrival, and he said that you never know what is going on. He gave two examples, one of an open manhole cover on a platform which passengers could have fallen down if he had opened the doors, and a mass brawl on the platform at Dewsbury which he and his passengers observed from the safety of the train with the doors locked.

It's really not though is it. Guards at lots of operators don't routinely step onto the platform before releasing the doors e.g. SWR. They might do it only occasionally, when not satisfied that the train is correctly platformed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's really not though is it. Guards at lots of operators don't routinely step onto the platform before releasing the doors e.g. SWR. They might do it only occasionally, when not satisfied that the train is correctly platformed.

It's mandatory at most TOCs. SWR is one where it isn't, the guard is allowed to use their judgement.

 

[Starmill]

It's mandatory at most TOCs. SWR is one where it isn't, the guard is allowed to use their judgement.

It might be most out of the ones where the guard releases the doors, but the fact that so many operators retain guards but who don't release the doors at all make it daft that it's the rule anywhere. The guard (or driver, where relevant) can and of course should still make a decision themselves. Mandating it is just time wasting, unless at specific locations in response to risk assessment.

 

[tbtc]

In Hong Kong in the 90s, that kind of "platform dash" actually existed when 9-car and 12-car trains served the same line, and a TV programme about the train service mentioned this as well. The rail company did a series of service improvement, which included putting a staff on the platform at the end position of the 9-car train, showing how long the next train would be. All trains on that line were unified to be 12-car long eventually as demand increased, but now it's returning to 9-car due to line extension where a 12-car platform can't be built. In modern era, the displays can do this job, however, stickers were put along the whole length of the platform showing which carriage a 12-car or a 9-car train would be at that part of the platform.

I have seen none of these in the UK, so it's a blind guess if the train is not a full-length train. I would appreciate such stickers at every platform where not all trains serving it are of the same length.

This sounds like a great example of a situation where the railway could improve the passenger experience (and, by improving dwell times, the reliability and speed of trains) with simple things like stickers/ posters/ signs (rather than spending hundreds of millions of pounds on mega-projects)

People know where to stand at a bus stop (especially as most have tactile paving nowadays, for the driver to line the door up with)

People know where to stand at tram stops here in Sheffield because there's similar paving, so passengers are already lined up close to the four doors in anticipation

Trains can stop anywhere along the platform, and the lengths aren't always advertised to passengers beforehand, so people have no idea where to stand, there's the disruption when the train pulls in and people start dashing in different directions depending on how many carriages there are (and where the First Class is etc)

I know that lining up a train precisely with a particular section of platform isn't going to be easy in all circumstances, but some rough approximation would be a huge help - Virgin did well with their different colours of "zones" (e.g. "First Class will be in the Gold Zone", so passengers for First Class could confidently stand at that part of the platform) - something broadly along those lines would be a big help to dwells, especially on the old "Provincial" operations, where train lengths can vary much more than the fixed formation InterCity/NSE services, and passengers therefore don't know where to stand (e.g. a local journey here in South Yorkshire could mean a 2x20m 150 or a 6x23m 185, and not all passengers are clued up enough to know which length of train is going to be arriving into the platform in advance)

Simple things - it doesn't have to be "perfect" but we could do a lot better by focussing on the little details and trying to improve them

 

[Bletchleyite]

The colour zones were BR's doing, not Virgin's. Virgin later misused them for something a bit like Standard Premium, so I can see why people might be confused about that.

 

[ComUtoR]

A little bit of collaborative effort and forethought would prevent most of these issues. Of course that's severely lacking in much of the industry, hence why we end up in messy situations such as we find ourselves in today.

I would hope that any move towards GBR will push everyone to work together. Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen.

That may be your impression but I'm sorry to say it simply doesn't reflect the reality on the ground, at least not in most of the country. Release times are demonstrably quicker with driver release, by about 5 seconds or so. Some operators have endured long strikes over it - they've not introduced it for fun and games.

Apologies, let me clarify further.

Coming to a stand the DOO / Driver release may be a little faster, but the overall dispatch procedure is slower because everyone is more risk averse. Pasenger behaviour and infrastructure is where we need to focus.

PDPs should be proportionately written but again, the current setup favours excessive caution as there is still significant scope for human error (which operators will be blamed for), and little incentive to improve performance.

It's difficult as caution is pushed by the RSSB /DfT / ORR. The entire industry is risk averse.

Well designed beacon systems should only release those doors that are platformed, in the event of a stop short. It's a fudge if it works any other way.

Then the technology just isn't there at the moment. I've worked with two beacon styles and neither is perfect and still has technical errors.

There should be more standardisation so that there could be one beacon that works for all fleets. If we're being realistic, that's unlikely to happen - but it needn't be an impediment to the wider rollout of beacons.

But it follows from what you have eluded to earlier. Unless we all work together and bring one standard and solutions that are more universal then everything just leans towards another hodge podge further down the line. Working with Desiro Cities, they have different SDO across their fleet :/

There will always be technical errors but it is better to have these than human error.

No. Error should not be accepted or pushed to the machine. No error should be the goal.

In most cases they are better just by chance (e.g. because a particular feature is standard on that manufacturer's units), not through any deliberate decision. That needs to change.

Not sure I agree but I haven't spec'ed a unit before but from discussion on this very form and with people at Siemens. 700s were absolutely designed with dwell times in mind. Same with Lizzy line trains. The extra set of doors is to improve passenger loading and unloading.