• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

"Bad Train Day" at Sheffield

Status
Not open for further replies.

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
TOCs aren't interested in diversion routes these days, they make more money from the compensation payments from Network Rail, no matter what they say publicly, its profit first & customer service second.

Not quite.

It is always a balancing act between costs and potential benefits. How much do you actually understand TOC finance? Do you even know how tight things can be at times? How often has the problem described in this thread occurred?

I find your assertion utterly offensive.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Do the crew usually travel to Leeds by road transport? Were they stopped before they set off?

Presumably the train was unable to get back to Leeds because of the blockage so it was fuelled at Derby and if Control had their act together they would have known the day before that the train would be starting from Derby instead of Leeds. I don't know if EMT have any crews in Leeds but if so they would have had plenty of time to get to Sheffield "on the cushions" or by taxi if necessary. If the crew was based elsewhere they would probably have just gone to Derby instead of Leeds to pick up the train there.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Not quite.

It is always a balancing act between costs and potential benefits. How much do you actually understand TOC finance? Do you even know how tight things can be at times? How often has the problem described in this thread occurred?

I find your assertion utterly offensive.

It is a fair, if badly expressed, point. Part of the TOC commercial decision making process will be the level of schedule 8 payments they can expect to receive in relation to closures/disruption. If the figures are bad sitting back and accepting the compensation payment might be an attractive option.

That system can drive seemingly perverse behaviour & it is easy to see how many people might think TOC's would put profits first.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Not quite.

It is always a balancing act between costs and potential benefits. How much do you actually understand TOC finance? Do you even know how tight things can be at times? How often has the problem described in this thread occurred?

I find your assertion utterly offensive.

VTWC decided about a year ago to finish Route Refreshing over the S & C which hinted that they had no intention of using it as a diversionary route any more.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
VTWC decided about a year ago to finish Route Refreshing over the S & C which hinted that they had no intention of using it as a diversionary route any more.

Did that have anything to do with the fact that the line was closed (as a through route) for over a year? And might they now re-start route refreshing?
 

MichaelAMW

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Messages
1,011
I think that's rather overstating the obligations. They can consider that their relationships with their customers, or the community, or the impact on the environment are more important than short-term profit. (In fact, they are actually supposed to consider all these things!)

In a sense you are both right: acting in the interests of shareholders is not the same as maximising short-term profit so if, say, being environmentally aware is likely to boost the company's profile and activity over the longer term then it's a reasonable thing to do. I guess it's ultimately all about profit in the end but that could mean making decisions that mean the company is (still) in profit in 20 years time rather than having folded.
 

lincolnshire

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
884
The loco which came off was a DRS one I believe as there was DRS van on North end of Platform 1b. As clue as to what it was doing there how many loco,s on there own and freight trains do you see passing through the station. That will be the reason that there was no chance of diverting via Masborough.

As it depends on who.s fault it is everyone will be practising dip your bread in time into the delay repayments pot to see how much you can suck out of it.

Wonder which company is filling up the pot then?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
The loco which came off was a DRS one I believe as there was DRS van on North end of Platform 1b. As clue as to what it was doing there how many loco,s on there own and freight trains do you see passing through the station. That will be the reason that there was no chance of diverting via Masborough.

The reason there couldn't be a diversion was that the loco was off over the junction and the diversionary route was closed.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
If so, then that might explain it. I wonder if the derailed "freight" train is actually an engineering train. Guess we'll find out eventually what the culprit is.

Always annoys me when I see an engineering train in trouble described as a "freight" train.

What it carries isn't classified as "freight" when it comes to comparing rail v road tonnage, so it isn't "freight" when it causes trouble to passengers!

Rant over!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Always annoys me when I see an engineering train in trouble described as a "freight" train.

What it carries isn't classified as "freight" when it comes to comparing rail v road tonnage, so it isn't "freight" when it causes trouble to passengers!

Rant over!

I wouldn't worry. Does calling it an engineering train help the general public understand what has happened. It has wagons and a locomotive much like a freight train. If it quacks like a duck etc.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
I wouldn't worry. Does calling it an engineering train help the general public understand what has happened. It has wagons and a locomotive much like a freight train. If it quacks like a duck etc.

Oh come on - you know all enthusiasts love to get all hot and bothered about these things ;)
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
It is a fair, if badly expressed, point. Part of the TOC commercial decision making process will be the level of schedule 8 payments they can expect to receive in relation to closures/disruption. If the figures are bad sitting back and accepting the compensation payment might be an attractive option.

That system can drive seemingly perverse behaviour & it is easy to see how many people might think TOC's would put profits first.

It is not a fair point.

I will go so far as to say all TOCs care about the customers (OK, maybe not GTR right now). Some do things badly at times, but that does not make the original assertion valid.

Having all eventualities covered is not an efficient use of limited resources. There are huge constraints on financial resources at all TOCs, and cash-flow must be very carefully managed. In an ideal world, you will have all crew signing all possible diversionary routes, but who is going to fund the increased costs? There is always a balance to be struck. Most TOCs seem to manage the balance well, or this will be reflected in various survey results and highlighted in the volume of customer complaints.

There is no denying that some get it wrong sometimes, but this Sheffield example is as far from an appropriate one as I can think.

Schedule 8 forecasts play a very small part in these decisions in fact, given their huge unpredictability in certain periods of the year. Route knowledge fits into a much longer term vision. You simply would not suddenly stop route refreshing which were considered necessary in the previous period because performance is expected to be good the next few periods.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
VTWC decided about a year ago to finish Route Refreshing over the S & C which hinted that they had no intention of using it as a diversionary route any more.

Wasn't the line blocked?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Oh come on - you know all enthusiasts love to get all hot and bothered about these things ;)

The percentage of freight moved by road v rail is a hot topic amongst lobbyists vying for government investment money.

If you move construction materials to a road construction site by road it counts in road freight figures. Move construction materials to a rail site by rail and they don't count. Perversely, move those same materials to the rail site by ROAD and they do count in road figures!

I have spent most of my life lobbying on such matters, including being called to give oral evidence to the Transport Select Committee so please don't play the "hot and bothered enthusiast" card.
 

brompton rail

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2009
Messages
754
Location
Doncaster
Presumably the train was unable to get back to Leeds because of the blockage so it was fuelled at Derby and if Control had their act together they would have known the day before that the train would be starting from Derby instead of Leeds. I don't know if EMT have any crews in Leeds but if so they would have had plenty of time to get to Sheffield "on the cushions" or by taxi if necessary. If the crew was based elsewhere they would probably have just gone to Derby instead of Leeds to pick up the train there.

I think the loco came off the road in the early hours of the morning.

The EMT HST would have worked to Leeds and Neville Hill as a service train on Saturday evening. Therefore it, and several XC HSTs were unable to run on Sunday morning, and cancelled north of Sheffield. The trains they would have operated were re-instated from Sheffield either by trains off Etches Park (EMT HST) or by Voyagers from Central Rivers (XC) or turned northbound workings that were unable to proceed beyond Sheffield (XC).Does anyone know if the St Pancras train was actually operated by an HST?

As far as I am aware EMT trains starting from Leeds / Nevill Hill are crewed by Derby drivers and on train staff from Sheffield, taxied there. There are a number of early each morning departures from Leeds (most run in passenger service though there are also empty coaching stock moves), and a similar number of St Pancras originated trains continue to Leeds / Nevill Hill in the late evening. Therefore to have Leeds based staff would either result in very long (04.30 to around midnight) duties or staff having to travel on the cushions during the day to end or start shifts.

When the HSTs are phased out it may well be that EMT services do not go north of Sheffield - for example the 05.25 Leeds to St Pancras carries about the number of passengers who would fit on a Pacer, but is staffed with driver, guard and catering staff (to get it ready for operation from Sheffield).
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think the loco came off the road in the early hours of the morning.

The EMT HST would have worked to Leeds and Neville Hill as a service train on Saturday evening. Therefore it, and several XC HSTs were unable to run on Sunday morning, and cancelled north of Sheffield. The trains they would have operated were re-instated from Sheffield either by trains off Etches Park (EMT HST) or by Voyagers from Central Rivers (XC) or turned northbound workings that were unable to proceed beyond Sheffield (XC).

As far as I am aware EMT trains starting from Leeds / Nevill Hill are crewed by Sheffield drivers and on train staff, taxied there. There are a number of early each morning departures from Leeds (most run in passenger service though there are also empty coaching stock moves), and a similar number of St Pancras originated trains continue to Leeds / Nevill Hill in the late evening. Therefore to have Leeds based staff would either result in very long (04.30 to around midnight) duties or staff having to travel on the cushions during the day to end or start shifts.

When the HSTs are phased out it may well be that EMT services do not go north of Sheffield - for example the 05.25 Leeds to St Pancras carries about the number of passengers who would fit on a Pacer, but is staffed with driver, guard and catering staff (to get it ready for operation from Sheffield).

Presumably they also got the stranded trains from Leeds to Derby during Sunday somehow, though I'm not sure if EMT would sign any such route except via Sheffield.
 

brompton rail

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2009
Messages
754
Location
Doncaster
None of the 'stranded' trains north of Sheffield were able to travel south.

XC turned trains coming from Birmingham at Sheffield and send them back south. Trains from the north were turned at Leeds and went back north.

EMT services from Sheffield on Sunday mornings are normally formed from Meridian sets that come from Etches Park depot (Derby). This depot also services HSTs and it was from here that the EMT HST set was sourced.

The alternative route - 'The Old Road" - from Rotherham Masborough through Beighton and past Barrow Hill was closed at its southern end by engineering works and not available for use. EMT and XC drivers only sign part of the route between Chesterfield and Brighton where their trains would use the Worksop line into Sheffield at Nunnery Junction - the spot where the loco derailed. So blocked at both ends! Neither TOCs drivers sign the Beighton to Masborough section anyway as it isn't used by diverted passenger services.

What happened after 12 noon when the line re-opened I don't know, but services returned to normal and travelled through Sheffield.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
It is not a fair point.

I will go so far as to say all TOCs care about the customers (OK, maybe not GTR right now). Some do things badly at times, but that does not make the original assertion valid.

I am not suggesting TOC's don't care about their customers, far from it. However I quite understand how it might often feel that way to passengers, especially passengers who have paid a considerable sum for a ticket. The public perception is that TOC's fleece them, make a fortune and grudgingly offer a poor, unreliable service in return. That is the perception - It may not be the reality.

Having all eventualities covered is not an efficient use of limited resources. There are huge constraints on financial resources at all TOCs, and cash-flow must be very carefully managed. In an ideal world, you will have all crew signing all possible diversionary routes, but who is going to fund the increased costs? There is always a balance to be struck. Most TOCs seem to manage the balance well, or this will be reflected in various survey results and highlighted in the volume of customer complaints.

There is no denying that some get it wrong sometimes, but this Sheffield example is as far from an appropriate one as I can think.

most passengers will be unaware of potential diversionary options. I am sure if the survey asked more detailed questions the responses would be different.

I am also sure most passengers on finding out the 3 hour delay they sat through could have been mitigated by using a diversion if only the driver signed the route might reasonably ( if incorrectly) feel that the TOC, considering the perception above, took a commercial decision to increase their fat profits while dumping on the customer.

I am all for sensible commercial decisions based on risk but sometimes the TOC's get it wrong and should expect to be challenged on those decisions when they do. In the case here I think alternative route knowledge would have offered very little benefit or return for that investment. However standing on the ECML for 3 hours you do start to wonder if the right decision was taken.............

Schedule 8 forecasts play a very small part in these decisions in fact, given their huge unpredictability in certain periods of the year. Route knowledge fits into a much longer term vision. You simply would not suddenly stop route refreshing which were considered necessary in the previous period because performance is expected to be good the next few periods.

I agree with you. However, the compensation payments might be small fry to the TOC ( They aren't to NR btw) but the compensation regime does reward the TOC quite well at times!
 

ALEMASTER

Member
Joined
18 Aug 2011
Messages
316
Northern locals were starting/terminating at Meadowhall with Supertram passing train tickets between Meadowhall Interchange and Sheffield Station.
 

Hairy Bear

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
344
Location
Derbyshire
None of the 'stranded' trains north of Sheffield were able to travel south.

XC turned trains coming from Birmingham at Sheffield and send them back south. Trains from the north were turned at Leeds and went back north.

EMT services from Sheffield on Sunday mornings are normally formed from Meridian sets that come from Etches Park depot (Derby). This depot also services HSTs and it was from here that the EMT HST set was sourced.

The alternative route - 'The Old Road" - from Rotherham Masborough through Beighton and past Barrow Hill was closed at its southern end by engineering works and not available for use. EMT and XC drivers only sign part of the route between Chesterfield and Brighton where their trains would use the Worksop line into Sheffield at Nunnery Junction - the spot where the loco derailed. So blocked at both ends! Neither TOCs drivers sign the Beighton to Masborough section anyway as it isn't used by diverted passenger services.

What happened after 12 noon when the line re-opened I don't know, but services returned to normal and travelled through Sheffield.

Wrong. I do and quite a few of my fellow drivers do. Only a couple of T/m 's though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top