Avanti - 1M20 being worked by 221 using 390 path?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
2,089
Location
Coach J Seat 39
Recently, Avanti have started diagramming 1M20 (15:40 Glasgow Central - London Euston via Trent Valley) to run as 2 x 221's as opposed to the normal 390 that would operate this route.

Strangely, it seems as if the timing load has not been adjusted to account for the lower EPS speeds permitted for the 221 sets compared to the 390's. As a result, this service has ran consistently late over the past week:

Monday - Left Glasgow Central on time at 15:40, was running 5 minutes late by the time it arrived in Carlisle, remained roughly 5-7 minutes behind schedule as far as Crewe, picked up time and arrived into Euston only 1 minute late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-22/detailed#allox_id=0)

Tuesday - Left Glasgow Central on time at 15:40, was running 9 minutes late by the time it arrived in Carlisle, this then increased further to running 15 minutes late by Lancaster, which continued most of the way to Euston, where it arrived 13 minutes late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-23/detailed#allox_id=0)

Wednesday - Left Glasgow Central on time, was running 3 minutes late by Carlisle, increased to 5 mins late by Penrith, then maintained a roughly 1-5 minute delay throughout the journey, arriving into Euston 6 mins late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-24/detailed#allox_id=0)

Thursday - Left Glasgow Central on time, was running 4 minutes late by Carlisle, ran roughly 1-4 mins late throughout the journey, arriving into Euston only 30 seconds behind schedule (this wasn't too bad today).

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-25/detailed#allox_id=0)

Friday - Left Glasgow Central on time, was running 11 minutes late by Carlisle, this increased to 16 mins late by Preston and 22 mins late by Crewe. Arrived into Euston 25 mins late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-26/detailed#allox_id=0)

Why is this being done? It's clear that, with the train arriving into Euston within 5 minutes of it's stated time on only 2 days out of 5, the train running 10+ mins late on 2 out of 5 days, and the train not arriving on time into Carlisle once during the week, the 221 is not able to keep up with the timing load of a 390. Avanti should not be advertising these times on their timetable if they are not confident they can be kept to and, whilst I'm sure the timetable/planning/allocating dept. wouldn't simply overlook this, is there a valid explanation for why this is consistently happening?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ceat0908

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2020
Messages
103
The delay on the northern section is more to do with the TSR at beattock than anything else. Theres not a lot of timing allowances for this particular service considering the TSRs at carstairs and beattock so if anything else unexpected happened like a late running service in front, it’s going to run late. I used this service a few weeks ago and we had made up a 4 min delay by Preston.

i think they use it as the 221s come off of a Holyhead service at Euston and it just works to put them on this otherwise they would be sitting around for a while and would probably result in a 390 having to come from Camden and the 221s having to go to Camden. This is only due to the temp timetable.

it could also be to keep Polmadie drivers competencies for 221s as they have no 221 work unless they are covering edinburgh turns or the once weekly 221 that goes via Birmingham to Glasgow to work the sunday Morning Edinburgh to Euston. normally they have a few 221 turns on the Glasgow to eus via west mids but these aren’t running at the moment.

having had a look at the services you’ve referred to, it does look to be both late running services in front and the TSRs at beattock that have caused most delays.
 
Last edited:

Hardcastle

Member
Joined
21 Dec 2013
Messages
328
Location
Preston
Today 27/3 its a Pendo & delays again much the same as the past week so not so much a traction fault.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
11,860
Retiming it would probably means causing problems timetable wise, easier to leave it as a 390 for a short period and take the delay hits.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2019
Messages
704
Location
London
Retiming it would probably means causing problems timetable wise, easier to leave it as a 390 for a short period and take the delay hits.
Particularly I imagine with all the engineering work going on the WCML at the minute. Plus I can't imagine the delays for it will be that large, especially as a lot of it will probably be coming from the tsr at Beattock instead.
 

uww11x

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2017
Messages
282
Recently, Avanti have started diagramming 1M20 (15:40 Glasgow Central - London Euston via Trent Valley) to run as 2 x 221's as opposed to the normal 390 that would operate this route.

Strangely, it seems as if the timing load has not been adjusted to account for the lower EPS speeds permitted for the 221 sets compared to the 390's. As a result, this service has ran consistently late over the past week:

Monday - Left Glasgow Central on time at 15:40, was running 5 minutes late by the time it arrived in Carlisle, remained roughly 5-7 minutes behind schedule as far as Crewe, picked up time and arrived into Euston only 1 minute late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-22/detailed#allox_id=0)

Tuesday - Left Glasgow Central on time at 15:40, was running 9 minutes late by the time it arrived in Carlisle, this then increased further to running 15 minutes late by Lancaster, which continued most of the way to Euston, where it arrived 13 minutes late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-23/detailed#allox_id=0)

Wednesday - Left Glasgow Central on time, was running 3 minutes late by Carlisle, increased to 5 mins late by Penrith, then maintained a roughly 1-5 minute delay throughout the journey, arriving into Euston 6 mins late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-24/detailed#allox_id=0)

Thursday - Left Glasgow Central on time, was running 4 minutes late by Carlisle, ran roughly 1-4 mins late throughout the journey, arriving into Euston only 30 seconds behind schedule (this wasn't too bad today).

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-25/detailed#allox_id=0)

Friday - Left Glasgow Central on time, was running 11 minutes late by Carlisle, this increased to 16 mins late by Preston and 22 mins late by Crewe. Arrived into Euston 25 mins late.

(https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30511/2021-03-26/detailed#allox_id=0)

Why is this being done? It's clear that, with the train arriving into Euston within 5 minutes of it's stated time on only 2 days out of 5, the train running 10+ mins late on 2 out of 5 days, and the train not arriving on time into Carlisle once during the week, the 221 is not able to keep up with the timing load of a 390. Avanti should not be advertising these times on their timetable if they are not confident they can be kept to and, whilst I'm sure the timetable/planning/allocating dept. wouldn't simply overlook this, is there a valid explanation for why this is consistently happening?
1M16 Monday 22/03 delays in to carlisle due to the tsrs
1M16 Tuesday 23/03 Largest Delay 221 vice 390
1M16 Wednesday 24/03 Largest Delay Regulation Borne End
1M16 Thursday 25/03 RT Euston
1m16 Friday 26/03 ESR Lockerbie-Gretna JN largest incident
1M16 Saturday ESR Lockerbie-Gretna JN largest incident
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
2,089
Location
Coach J Seat 39
Thank you for clarifying the real reason behind these delays. I have two further questions regarding this:

1) Travelling over Quintinshill yesterday, I noticed a 'T' sign indicating the end point of a TSR on the 100 (125EPS) board just after the loops in the up direction. Is there a TSR currently in place over the up main at Quintinshill?

2) I note that the 221 is still pathed as a 390 (the timings have not been adjusted to account for this). Does this mean that there is enough allowance built into this timetable to allow for the lower speeds permitted for 221 units or would this likely still incur some delays at points along the journey?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
11,860
Thank you for clarifying the real reason behind these delays. I have two further questions regarding this:

2) I note that the 221 is still pathed as a 390 (the timings have not been adjusted to account for this). Does this mean that there is enough allowance built into this timetable to allow for the lower speeds permitted for 221 units or would this likely still incur some delays at points along the journey?
Depends who you talk to, some say a 221 will keep a 390 path, I don't agree. If there are no TSRs on then it won't have a problem as the engineering allowance will cover shortfalls.
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
1,476
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
Apologies for being slightly OT, but in my day 1M20 was the Up 'Royal Scot'; 10 10 Glasgow Central - London Euston, calling only at Carlisle and Preston and timed for 5 hours dead.
 

uww11x

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2017
Messages
282
Thank you for clarifying the real reason behind these delays. I have two further questions regarding this:

1) Travelling over Quintinshill yesterday, I noticed a 'T' sign indicating the end point of a TSR on the 100 (125EPS) board just after the loops in the up direction. Is there a TSR currently in place over the up main at Quintinshill?

2) I note that the 221 is still pathed as a 390 (the timings have not been adjusted to account for this). Does this mean that there is enough allowance built into this timetable to allow for the lower speeds permitted for 221 units or would this likely still incur some delays at points along the journey?
To Answer point 2, the usage of 221s might be temporary, so to save submitting variations they are just using the existing path. Delays under 3 minutes aren't counted and are classed as subthreshold. Plus you already have engineering allowances and recovery time to suck up some delays
 

AndrewE

On Moderation
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
3,795
In the pre-Covid timetable at least 1 one of the first two Class 9 Glasgow-Eustons was always a Voyager (or a pair of them.)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
16,206
Location
Mold, Clwyd
From memory, there aren't many places on the northern WCML which have differential speeds for 221 as opposed to 390s.
The ones south of Crewe don't make much difference to running time either.
221s probably lose more time to 390s in slower mid-speed acceleration rather than EPS differentials, but they are very capable units.
 

bengley

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,625
Thank you for clarifying the real reason behind these delays. I have two further questions regarding this:

1) Travelling over Quintinshill yesterday, I noticed a 'T' sign indicating the end point of a TSR on the 100 (125EPS) board just after the loops in the up direction. Is there a TSR currently in place over the up main at Quintinshill?

2) I note that the 221 is still pathed as a 390 (the timings have not been adjusted to account for this). Does this mean that there is enough allowance built into this timetable to allow for the lower speeds permitted for 221 units or would this likely still incur some delays at points along the journey?

Yes, there's a 50 on the up at Quintinshill.
 

Ceat0908

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2020
Messages
103
From memory, there aren't many places on the northern WCML which have differential speeds for 221 as opposed to 390s.
The ones south of Crewe don't make much difference to running time either.
221s probably lose more time to 390s in slower mid-speed acceleration rather than EPS differentials, but they are very capable units.
A 221 running with all engines could keep up with 390 timings at a real push. You are right about the speed differences, it’s really only 5mph difference in places and only for short periods of time.
 

Watershed

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
3,178
Location
UK
2) I note that the 221 is still pathed as a 390 (the timings have not been adjusted to account for this). Does this mean that there is enough allowance built into this timetable to allow for the lower speeds permitted for 221 units or would this likely still incur some delays at points along the journey?
The timings are based on the December timetable. Those timings in turn rest on an assumption as to whether a 221 or 390 will be diagrammed.

The timings can only be changed through the STP (short term planning) process, but over a journey this long, adding a few minutes' slack through STP throughout the schedule to make up for the slightly slower performance of 221s isn't really feasible. You may have to retime the whole of the WCML to make it work properly... The best that can really be done is to add a greater public differential to the arrival times at each station.

Sub-threshold delays are likely to accrue as a result of the substitution. This is the kind of thing that engineering allowances would usually soak up, but when there are substantial TSRs in place (as there currently are over parts of the northern WCML), these delays 'reveal' themselves.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
1,697
In the pre-Covid timetable at least 1 one of the first two Class 9 Glasgow-Eustons was always a Voyager (or a pair of them.)

Weekdays it was the 10:00 Glasgow - Euston
Weekends it was the 08:00 Glasgow - Euston
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top