Cholsey-Didcot slower now?

[cholsey-choose]

Hi all,

Merry Christmas! I assume to coincide with the introduction of the new trains with even more obnoxious beeps and announcements, GWR is changing the timetable from Jan 2 around here: there will be almost no through trains from Cholsey to Oxford, but instead there'll be a change at Didcot.

Annoying, but understandable. What strikes me though is that under the new timetable, the Cholsey-Didcot journey is scheduled to take more like 9-10 minutes than the current 5-6 minutes.

(You can check this by comparing journeys this Weds with journeys after Jan 2.)

Does anyone know why this might be? The overall Cholsey-Oxford trip is going from about 27 minutes to more like 35- from Wallingford the bus is now clearly the better option IMO.

 

[jyte]

I'm not sure. Maybe for PPM measures to ensure the trains arrive at their destination (didcot) on time more often? Where's the timetable visible?

 

[DanNCL]

Perhaps this is '5 minute bonus' to ensure the train arrives at its destination (Didcot) on time for PPM reasons that it would naturally.

Actually I'm not sure.

I think that is the case; the return from Didcot to Cholsey only takes 6 minutes in the new timetable

 

[cholsey-choose]

I was just looking using the ATW journey planner, I don't know where the 'real' timetable is. I'd not noticed the section into Didcot being unusually delayed. It's crazy that it's scheduled to take 9 minutes to travel approx 5 miles using new trains

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It might be a couple of things:
1. A bit of padding in the 'public book' to protect PPM for trains terminating Didcot that previously had similar padding at Oxford. (Before anyone cries foul, I see no point in advertising arrival times that won't be achieved. BR adjusted public times like crazy, just look at a working timetable from 1990.)
2. Terminating EMUs from Paddington will now arrive into Didcot PW platform 4 rather than platform 3, which takes 1.5 mins longer due to approach control signalling. Obviously 1.5 rounds up to 2 mins.
3. DOO services generally advertise departure times -1 min compared to working times to protect against accidental earlier-than-advertised departure times due to driver workload. This is a greater risk with 100mph 387s operating to 90mph Turbo timings at first so might be -2 or even -3 in places.
4. The shuttle from Oxford will arrive Didcot about the same time as the EMU from Paddington. However signalling overlaps prevent simultaneous opposite direction arrivals into P4 / P5 so perhaps the down stopper is having to wait at Didcot East for a couple of minutes while the Turbo arrives.
5. Combinations of the above.

Hope this helps.

 

[DidcotDickie]

Agree with Wilts Wanderer point#2

Westbound services like 2N23 which are scheduled into platform 3 at Didcot take 7 minutes from Cholsey, those scheduled into 4 have a couple of minutes added.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C57815/2018/01/03/advanced (2N23, plat 3)
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C57827/2018/01/03/advanced (2N31, plat 4)

 

[cholsey-choose]

Thanks all, this is helpful -- nice to know it's not entirely cynical timetable padding!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

No such thing as cynical timetable padding! There's a mis-placed assumption that it is somehow cheating the system. Whilst it might mask poor performance en-route, it protects the customer from planning unrealistically tight onward travel as much as anything.

The Eastern region came up with schedule padding in the early 1950s. Their approach was simply to add a 15-20 min block of time into every southbound express at an arbitrary point between Grantham and Kings Cross. Must have been hell for the signallers who were trying to regulate services!

 

[cholsey-choose]

I might agree with you that not *all* timetable padding is cynical, but in a world of public metrics and fines for unpunctuality, are you sure that *none* of it could be?

 

[bb21]

I might agree with you that not *all* timetable padding is cynical, but in a world of public metrics and fines for unpunctuality, are you sure that *none* of it could be?

Perhaps the criticism should be directed at the DfT for failing to specify a sufficiently comprehensive framework of maximum journey times if one were inclined to look at things through a cynical eye.

No TOC will knowingly extend journey times unnecessarily (barring perhaps some odd exceptions as I can't speak for every case). It will drive customers away.

 

[HowardGWR]

Given WW's point 4, if that is correct, perhaps drivers could be instructed to 'trundle' from Cholsey. There is nothing more irritating than being held like that - every time. It's just human psychology.

For instance, I note that when a class 159 3 car turns up at Salisbury from Exeter and joins a unit in front, leaving pax are held for a minute in it, while the drivers 'eases up'. I see people getting very impatient while this is happening.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Given WW's point 4, if that is correct, perhaps drivers could be instructed to 'trundle' from Cholsey. There is nothing more irritating than being held like that - every time. It's just human psychology.

From a capacity point of view that is a really bad idea. What happens on the probably not infrequent occasions when the Turbo is late and the EMU has the road first? You'd lock up Didcot East Jcn unnecessarily, already one of the worst performance locations on the GWML.

 

[HowardGWR]

From a capacity point of view that is a really bad idea. What happens on the probably not infrequent occasions when the Turbo is late and the EMU has the road first? You'd lock up Didcot East Jcn unnecessarily, already one of the worst performance locations on the GWML.

Ah, silly me, there I was thinking drivers would have an RTT display at their side!

 

[infobleep]

No such thing as cynical timetable padding! There's a mis-placed assumption that it is somehow cheating the system. Whilst it might mask poor performance en-route, it protects the customer from planning unrealistically tight onward travel as much as anything.

The Eastern region came up with schedule padding in the early 1950s. Their approach was simply to add a 15-20 min block of time into every southbound express at an arbitrary point between Grantham and Kings Cross. Must have been hell for the signallers who were trying to regulate services!

Surely that still happens with trains scheduled to wait at Birmingham or Reading or are you saying the padding was between stations rather than at stations?

I can see why times might need to be slower but I can also see why passengers might not be happy about it.

Rail companies go on about speeding up journeys. The DfT and government went on about how the electrification of the Great Western mainline woild save people 20 minutes from London to Cardiff.

Perhaps if they went on less about speeding up journeys and just focused solely on the other benefits of the train travel, people might think differently.

 

[coppercapped]

Surely that still happens with trains scheduled to wait at Birmingham or Reading or are you saying the padding was between stations rather than at stations?

I can see why times might need to be slower but I can also see why passengers might not be happy about it.

Rail companies go on about speeding up journeys. The DfT and government went on about how the electrification of the Great Western mainline woild save people 20 minutes from London to Cardiff.

Perhaps if they went on less about speeding up journeys and just focused solely on the other benefits of the train travel, people might think differently.

Regarding Reading - to which trains are you referring?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The padding was between stations in an arbitrary block.

Accelerating journeys through infrastructure / rolling stock improvement is one thing, artificially accelerating a selected few headline journeys by removing all performance padding is another. I know which one performs better! A modest amount of recovery time is always sensible. Another way to do it is slightly lengthened station stops. None of it is cheating, because all of it is advertised. Travel in Europe and Intercity services routinely stop for 5 mins at each principal station. Now compare that with Intercity services in this country, which often only allow the minimum dwell at every station en-route. XC break this pattern, but much of that is down to pathing. They would rather sit at Derby for 8 mins rather than crawl behind the stopper into Sheffield, which is sensible from a journeytime point of view.

 

[jayah]

No such thing as cynical timetable padding! There's a mis-placed assumption that it is somehow cheating the system. Whilst it might mask poor performance en-route, it protects the customer from planning unrealistically tight onward travel as much as anything.

When the padding all comes at the end it is blatant manipulation and it doesn't help onward connections if everybody left the train when it was still late.