December 2014 TT changes

[ryan125hst]

A few weeks ago wasn't there a report that some sidings at Dorking had been brought into use that quoted RTT, but the evidence on the ground was that the train had not used the sidings in question. I think that was explained away as a data error of some sort...

Sometimes RTT gets the platforms at Peterborough wrong - it claims that FCC services sit in Platform 3 which is the new through platform whilst an EC service is passing through. In practice this can't happen otherwise there would be a mess.

It looks like it's new infrastructure that causes a few problems. Maybe something needs to be entered into the system to modify the data but it hasn't been done yet.

 

[PHILIPE]

A new platform was opened at Caerphilly approx. a year ago now. This a Cardiff facing Bay on the Down Side and has been numbered Platform 1. No.2 (Down Main) remains the same and the former No. 1 (Up Main) has been re-numbered 3. Network Rail still haven't caught up with aPlatform 3 still being non-existent.
If you go to RTT it will be seen that the Up Trains still have no platform No. allocated.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

The "new" & former North Box sidings at Guildford which have cost a small fortune are still not in use, due to teething issues.
Including one that requires a driver to step off the walkway every 20m or so to avoid static build up or get an electric shock when they touch the gates!

 

[ryan125hst]

A new platform was opened at Caerphilly approx. a year ago now. This a Cardiff facing Bay on the Down Side and has been numbered Platform 1. No.2 (Down Main) remains the same and the former No. 1 (Up Main) has been re-numbered 3. Network Rail still haven't caught up with aPlatform 3 still being non-existent.
If you go to RTT it will be seen that the Up Trains still have no platform No. allocated.

It definitely looks like an issue with new infrastructure. I wonder how they go about adding this to the system?

 

[ultrabox]

In another area in the country, I am quite surprised to see the timings are still the same for the GN/GE joint line in Lincolnshire.

I presume the upgrade would have been finished by then with the higher line speeds in place, however the future timings are the same as now on OTT.

The only thing I can think of is that the services will simply have longer dwells at each station and perhaps it will be tightened up in the May timetable change, or perhaps they simply haven't got round to amending them in ITPS yet.

I doubt very much that there is an appetite at EMT to improve the service on the Joint Line. I would imagine that local passenger services are heavily subsidised by government anyway.

 

[louis97]

It definitely looks like an issue with new infrastructure. I wonder how they go about adding this to the system?

New Infrastructure requires new data to be written from scratch, this is always the case with re signalling projects - which will explain the issues experienced in the Cardiff Valleys. (Although its worth noting that if it is a TRUST Smart report, this is outside of RTTs control, and will be showing because TD data has not yet been uploaded into the public version of RTT.

Re-numbering of platforms such as at Peterborough requires the data to be modified to recognise the new layout.

When new infrastructure is built or a area involved in a re signalling project, it requires the new berth movements to be identified and their associated new 'offsets' to be recorded and - this is the difference between the movement of a headcode in train describers and the desired report that is required for that move (such as an arrival or departure).

I am one of the team of 3 volunteers who is responsible for the recording of this data for the use of RTT, and I can confirm that when the new version of RTT is released (unknown date) the following will be up to scratch: Cardiff Valleys, Peterborough platform numbers, Huyton to Broad Green and Peterborough to Gainsborough via Spalding. This will be combined with a range of other areas that have had changes made for accuracy and also a wide range of current 'no report' locations now reporting for completeness.

 

[ryan125hst]

New Infrastructure requires new data to be written from scratch, this is always the case with re signalling projects - which will explain the issues experienced in the Cardiff Valleys. (Although its worth noting that if it is a TRUST Smart report, this is outside of RTTs control, and will be showing because TD data has not yet been uploaded into the public version of RTT.

Re-numbering of platforms such as at Peterborough requires the data to be modified to recognise the new layout.

I thought that we be the case, and I'm guessing that it takes quite a bit of time and money for Network Rail to fix, so if everything is operating safely, they're in no rush to sort it! From an RTT point of view, I don't know how you manage to make it all work as well as it does, so I can forgive you for any glitches that occur from time to time.

When new infrastructure is built or a area involved in a re signalling project, it requires the new berth movements to be identified and their associated new 'offsets' to be recorded and - this is the difference between the movement of a headcode in train describers and the desired report that is required for that move (such as an arrival or departure).

Are these offsets what allow timings to be shown to an accuracy of 1/4 of a second? I've always wondered how they can recorded the arrival and departure times so accurately when a track circuit will be occupied for a lot longer than the station dwell time.

I am one of the team of 3 volunteers who is responsible for the recording of this data for the use of RTT, and I can confirm that when the new version of RTT is released (unknown date) the following will be up to scratch: Cardiff Valleys, Peterborough platform numbers, Huyton to Broad Green and Peterborough to Gainsborough via Spalding. This will be combined with a range of other areas that have had changes made for accuracy and also a wide range of current 'no report' locations now reporting for completeness.

I'm looking forward to seeing the improvements as I am always looking on Realtime Trains! I don't know how us enthusiasts used to cope without it as links to trains on it appear on here most days. Keep up the good work!

 

[louis97]

Are these offsets what allow timings to be shown to an accuracy of 1/4 of a second? I've always wondered how they can recorded the arrival and departure times so accurately when a track circuit will be occupied for a lot longer than the station dwell time.

Yes, the offsets are timed in seconds, so therefore allow accuracy down to 1/4 of a minute. Network Rail use the same system for Trust SMART reports, although don't show down to 1/4 of a minute.
Its not based on track circuit data, we have no access to any track circuit data (not that it is any use anyway, as theres no way to identify a train from an occupied track circuit alone), the data used is the movement of train describers between berths (these are generally placed at every main aspect signal and some shunt signals).

 

[dvboy]

The same could be said for the morning Rugby to Euston service via Northampton as it runs empty from New Street after arriving in from Barton u and it could run a passenger service.

Not if it's crewed from Rugby, it can't.
My point was the Shrewsbury service would be crewed from Wolves anyway, so why not run it in passenger service from Wolves to Shrewsbury?

 

[atraindriver]

I doubt very much that there is an appetite at EMT to improve the service on the Joint Line. I would imagine that local passenger services are heavily subsidised by government anyway.

There is no funding available for service improvements on the Joint Line, so don't expect anything at all; as I hear it, regardless of line speed improvements or increased opening hours, the current timetable will remain in force for the foreseeable future, with only minor tweaks.

As far as I can see, EMT is not in a position to finance anything itself - heck, even the 1/2 hourly Derby-Sheffield service [the extension of the MML London stoppers] is being paid for by SYPTE!
Lincs CC have not been successful in any of their attempts over the past decade to get Local Transport Plan funding for improved local rail services, so they're also in no position to fund improvements.

There are, of course, plenty of rumours on the grapevine along the lines of clockface hourly services Lincoln - Peterborough from early until late, but rumour is all they are.
Wishful thinking, in fact, masquerading as rumour.

I'd suggest that the only hope for change is if bidders for the next East Midlands franchise offer something as a sweetener, but I also suspect they'll be more interested in the possibilities offered by MML electrification to pay much attention to the possibilities for Lincolnshire's rural services.

 

[Starmill]

There is no funding available for service improvements on the Joint Line, so don't expect anything at all; as I hear it, regardless of line speed improvements or increased opening hours, the current timetable will remain in force for the foreseeable future, with only minor tweaks.

As far as I can see, EMT is not in a position to finance anything itself - heck, even the 1/2 hourly Derby-Sheffield service [the extension of the MML London stoppers] is being paid for by SYPTE!
Lincs CC have not been successful in any of their attempts over the past decade to get Local Transport Plan funding for improved local rail services, so they're also in no position to fund improvements.

There are, of course, plenty of rumours on the grapevine along the lines of clockface hourly services Lincoln - Peterborough from early until late, but rumour is all they are.
Wishful thinking, in fact, masquerading as rumour.

Having had an explore for the first (and, probably, last) time around what remains of Lincolnshire's railways recently, I cannot help but agree with you. Most of the services seemed to be an utter waste of time, and that does not look likely to change any time soon. Scunthorpe, Barnetby, Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Sleaford, Boston and Skgeness have reasonable frequency, but it starts late and finishes too early, and at intermediate stations you can forget it. Connectivity to the wider world is generally slow and difficult, and basically all of what services there are in and out of Lincoln are completely inadequate.

Hence my response about which brand of paint thinner you have been sniffing if you were expecting more trains on the joint line! :P And we Mancs have the nerve to complain that our wires are going up too slowly and our EMUs are a bit tatty... gosh.

 

[David Barrett]

There is no funding available for service improvements on the Joint Line, so don't expect anything at all; as I hear it, regardless of line speed improvements or increased opening hours, the current timetable will remain in force for the foreseeable future, with only minor tweaks.

As far as I can see, EMT is not in a position to finance anything itself - heck, even the 1/2 hourly Derby-Sheffield service [the extension of the MML London stoppers] is being paid for by SYPTE!
Lincs CC have not been successful in any of their attempts over the past decade to get Local Transport Plan funding for improved local rail services, so they're also in no position to fund improvements.

There are, of course, plenty of rumours on the grapevine along the lines of clockface hourly services Lincoln - Peterborough from early until late, but rumour is all they are.
Wishful thinking, in fact, masquerading as rumour.

I'd suggest that the only hope for change is if bidders for the next East Midlands franchise offer something as a sweetener, but I also suspect they'll be more interested in the possibilities offered by MML electrification to pay much attention to the possibilities for Lincolnshire's rural services.

Sadly I have to agree. It would be unwise to attempt any major improvement in the absence of resources and whilst I think that a drastically improved service could be established over the joint line using the same number of trains as at present I would not contemplate any such changes without additional rolling stock for strengthening purposes. EMT have a poor enough reputation hereabouts anyway without doing anything to stimulate further demand, particularly during the peak periods.

After all the talk a year or so ago of around ten minutes coming off joint line timings just four minutes is spoken of these days between Lincoln and Peterborough and whilst there is the potential there to finally make the 10.15 Lincoln to Peterborough a connection from the 09.20 Grimsby to Newark at Lincoln, personally I'm still banking on long term use of the 11.10 as is generally the case now.

Still there's always the tea room.

 

[atraindriver]

After all the talk a year or so ago of around ten minutes coming off joint line timings just four minutes is spoken of these days between Lincoln and Peterborough

I don't think 10 minutes was ever realistic, not given the rolling stock in use. I think 4 is probably erring on the side of caution, but I wouldn't have gone above 7 or 8.

There won't be much time gained between Lincoln and Sleaford even with the linespeed increase, simply because 153s acceleration is so poor. 75mph Sleaford to Spalding allows you to do it in 20 minutes rather than the currently scheduled 24, I know that from experience (although I'm not admitting to how or when!).

The unknown quantity is how much time could be gained between Spalding and Werrington. My guess is about 3 minutes on that section.

There's also an ongoing call for increased station dwells as that's where a lot of the regular, small delays are occurring; most intermediate Joint line stops are 30 seconds, which are slowly being increased to a full minute, and both Sleaford and Spalding are seeing the standard 1 minute increased to 2 or even 3. That all bites into any time gained by the linespeed increase, and may be the real reason the "improvement" will only be 4 minutes overall: much of the time gained will be used to pad station dwells.

whilst there is the potential there to finally make the 10.15 Lincoln to Peterborough a connection from the 09.20 Grimsby to Newark at Lincoln

That's a badly timed run, the 10:15. Has 2.5 minutes pathing time approaching Sleaford to allow the 10:44 Skeg to leave, and is pretty loosely timed anyway, so it could leave Lincoln at 10:18 regardless of the Joint Line changes.

But then the inward from Grimsby's not a good runner, regularly not arriving Lincoln until 10.16 or 10.17, I think because it stands at Rasen over-time through weight of numbers boarding. In turn that means any connection at Lincoln, even if advertised to meet the 5 minutes required, is likely to be touch-and-go.

One issue I think all TOCs have is that necessary train-lengths are viewed purely through the prism of bums-on-seats. A larger train (even 2 cars instead of 1) spreads the boarding and alighting passengers with an overall reduction in station dwell time, which in turn reduces those station delays...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

reatimetrains suggests there are significant changes to the service pattern at Glasgow Central once the Rutherglen & Coatbridge line starts electric running.
In a typical off-peak hour:
- Lanark trains are diverted to terminate at High Level.
- One of the Hamilton Loop Motherwell terminators is extended to Cumbernauld via Whifflet, replacing the shuttle.
- Both Carmyle line services to Whifflet start from Dalmuir and run via Central LL.
One of these services terminates at Whifflet but the other runs through to Motherwell. This gives Whifflet-Motherwell 2tph, both being through Glasgow Central trains but in opposite directions.

Destinations of the other Low Level trains are also switched.
The upshot, I think, is less conflict between High Level and Low Level services at Rutherglen.
Maybe someone with more local knowledge can comment.
The Scottish electrification projects do seem to be going smoothly, using capacity in the existing (mostly quite old) electric fleet.
None of the resentment of the north west scheme and the 319s!

 

[IanXC]

For those of you who may have missed this, another December change appears to be Hull Trains extending 1 service each way to Beverley. See this thread:http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105476

 

[an7li721]

Does anybody know the service workings for the 3 LM class 350s on the cross city line, it would be nice to have a change from the class 323

 

[JonathanH]

Does anybody know the service workings for the 3 LM class 350s on the cross city line, it would be nice to have a change from the class 323

While three 350s are nominally being provided to enhance the cross city route, isn't the point that these replace 323s on other services in the West Midlands (eg Walsall or International shuttles) and the Cross City gets more 323s allocated?

 

[Old Hill Bank]

While three 350s are nominally being provided to enhance the cross city route, isn't the point that these replace 323s on other services in the West Midlands (eg Walsall or International shuttles) and the Cross City gets more 323s allocated?

Quite correct, have a look at LMs track access changed on the attached link for more detail, form P gives a summary of the WCML enhancements.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...tations\2014.09.24 LM 52nd SA closes 22.10.14

 

[LTJ87]

From a cursory scan of the EMT Nottingham - London St Pancras timetable, I can't see any journey time improvements on this route. I recall more improvements were expected.

 

[Class 170101]

List of weekday changes here

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...m dec 2014 wcml peak amendments - summary.pdf

 

[PHILIPE]

List of weekday changes here

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...m dec 2014 wcml peak amendments - summary.pdf

Only LM that I can see.

 

[swt_passenger]

Only LM that I can see.

I expect the explanation is that Class 170101 probably posted that info after following the link in Old Hill Bank's earlier post, and he didn't see the one asking about EMT in between...

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I can't see any improvements happening on the SWT patch.

We've already seen a further degradation of running between Surbiton & Wombledon for 2Gxx & 2Fxx, journey time extended from 6-7', from 7-8' last year, which is ridiculous considering you can do it in 5-6' non stop.

You only need to do 35-38 mph average, down from 45 mph last year, do any more and you'll come to a stand because the wretched 2Hxx & 2Oxx are in the way and are always late.

Sorry for the mini rant.

 

[Manchester77]

I imagine SWT a any do much since their additional stock plans are running behind schedule due to issues with refurbishments, hopefully come may 15 SWT will be benefiting from the additional 6 458s as well as 456s creating some kind of an internal cascade. It's likely any improvements on SWT will not be in the timetable but in 8 car 455 runs becomes 10 car 455+456 runs or 8 car 450s becoming 10 car 458s

 

[Aictos]

Only LM that I can see.

Is there a link to other TOCs Dec 2014 Timetable Changes?

 

[merlodlliw]

Is there a link to other TOCs Dec 2014 Timetable Changes?

Not all tocs publish until a few weeks prior,I have the ATW North Wales/Crewe/Manchester/Birmingham Changes, PM me if you want to see them.


Bob

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Looking at the link to LM changes above, and prior to that at Real Time Trains, I note that a 2 hour gap has appeared in the service at Stone in the evening peak, rendering it implausible to commute from Stone to Birmingham and return home at a sensible time.

1U45 SX 1746 Euston-Crewe additional timed at 110mph first stop Milton Keynes then via Weedon to Rugby. From
Stafford runs first stop Stoke, then Crewe, then ecs to LNWR Depot at 2049. Does not call Stone, Kidsgrove or
Alsager as formed 8-car 350 throughout. (additional Euston-Rugby then vice 2U99 Rugby-Crewe)

This train currently splits at Stafford to provide a 4 car train able to call at Stone etc.

Poor show, yet again, by London Midland - and with no publicity to make people aware of the negative change, I would expect local outrage when it becomes public knowledge.

Thinking about it, why runs this service via Stoke at all? Plenty of Virgin Trains from Euston to Stoke which are quicker than LM, and Cross Country Train from Birmingham - Stafford - Stoke.

 

[evergreenadam]

Looking at the link to LM changes above, and prior to that at Real Time Trains, I note that a 2 hour gap has appeared in the service at Stone in the evening peak, rendering it implausible to commute from Stone to Birmingham and return home at a sensible time.

1U45 SX 1746 Euston-Crewe additional timed at 110mph first stop Milton Keynes then via Weedon to Rugby. From
Stafford runs first stop Stoke, then Crewe, then ecs to LNWR Depot at 2049. Does not call Stone, Kidsgrove or
Alsager as formed 8-car 350 throughout. (additional Euston-Rugby then vice 2U99 Rugby-Crewe)

This train currently splits at Stafford to provide a 4 car train able to call at Stone etc.

Poor show, yet again, by London Midland - and with no publicity to make people aware of the negative change, I would expect local outrage when it becomes public knowledge.

Thinking about it, why runs this service via Stoke at all? Plenty of Virgin Trains from Euston to Stoke which are quicker than LM, and Cross Country Train from Birmingham - Stafford - Stoke.

I think the diversion of an evening train out of Birmingham New Street to run via Stoke to Crewe is meant to provide a connection at Stafford for Stone out of the speeded up 1746 from Euston. The commute must be hellish at present with just four cars, so the change of trains at Stafford will be a small price to pay.

[1K56 SX 1901 Birmingham New St-Crewe diverted from Stafford connecting out of 1U45 1746 Euston-Crewe and
diverted via the Potteries calling Stone 1956, Stoke 2006, Kidsgrove 2014, Alsager 2019 and Crewe arriving later at
2034. 100mph.

 

[43074]

On First Great Western, the 07:06 London Paddington to Paignton is diverted to Penzance, and the 07:30 London to Penzance via Bristol runs to Paignton in it's place. There are other tweeks in the South West to improve connections etc.

 

[Class 170101]

I think the diversion of an evening train out of Birmingham New Street to run via Stoke to Crewe is meant to provide a connection at Stafford for Stone out of the speeded up 1746 from Euston. The commute must be hellish at present with just four cars, so the change of trains at Stafford will be a small price to pay.

[1K56 SX 1901 Birmingham New St-Crewe diverted from Stafford connecting out of 1U45 1746 Euston-Crewe and
diverted via the Potteries calling Stone 1956, Stoke 2006, Kidsgrove 2014, Alsager 2019 and Crewe arriving later at
2034. 100mph.

The 19:01 SX from December actually makes it better. Its a direct train from Birmingham to Stone rather than changing at Stafford as per today.

If anything Birmingham to Crewe users end up with a slightly longer journey time unless they can connect into 1U46 at Stafford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I expect the explanation is that Class 170101 probably posted that info after following the link in Old Hill Bank's earlier post, and he didn't see the one asking about EMT in between...

I think the EMT one was posted whilst I was constructing my repsonse to the LM related posts.