Despatching error, or dysfunctional measurement system?

Right time starts from origin is certainly a measured metric as it appears in NR's internal performance data.

 

If Right Time Start is a metric, then a train which departs on time from the first station, is held for 5 minutes between stations and arrives and leaves the rest of its stations 5 minutes late is better than one which leaves five minutes late from its first station and then arrives and leaves the rest of its stations 5 minutes late. Despite the fact it make no difference to most passengers (they'll all be five munites late getting there), but may actually be worse for any who arrive late or on a late running connection.
One of those cases where chasing statistics makes things worse.

 

And I shall repeat what I said earlier.
NO signallers take orders about anything from XC control, or any other TOC control. The only people who will tell them what to do will be Network Rail Control.
I suggest that before you make any more incorrect statements about NR signallers you do some research about how they do their job, and what it entails.

 

Possibly, but the OP has again made a similar accusation (see my reply above), and this time in a situation where the presence of a TRTS button would have no affect.
I suspect that he doesn't understand how signallers work.

 

is the correct answer - however you will never convince people of that! ( Signalers are notoriously independent: even getting them to follow NR control instructions is a challenge sometimes!)

 

The concept that a signaller, controller, or indeed any member of staff could work out the financial effect of the options for a regulation decision in real time and then implement the one most advantageous to one particular company, is the funniest thing I have heard all week.

 

you mean you don't do that? Poor show.

 

Apart from the boxes where they do, for example Edinburgh SC (for Edinburgh Waverley) and West of Scotland SC (for Glasgow Central).

 

I know. I’ve let myself down, the company down, and the whole industry down. I’m ashamed.

 

No they take instructions from Network Rail Control, who may discuss things with the TOC Control.

 

But the member of staff has to make that decision nonetheless.
Based on?
In the case of Derby of course there are only 2 TOCs (ignoring freight).
See you in The Brunswick

 

Turn up to work, carpet slippers on, nothing moves until you’ve had three cups of tea, brassoed the box and read a chapter of your book?

 

To be fair, as a TOC Controller I routinely negotiate set swaps and other such alterations directly with signallers - getting the TRC to pass messages just invokes Chinese whispers

 

At WGC, signallers generally work to the workings and don't always take into account delays in the most sensible way, such as a shunting train held in the reverse sidings to let a Moorgate train depart on time. The signaller will give the go ahead for the driver of the late shunt to come into platform 1 even though it then has around ten minutes before departure in public service. The train on the other side has to wait and starts 1, 2 or even 3 minutes late.

But with the way things have been, I can see why the signaller may not feel the need to sit and work everything out and just do things in the planned sequence no matter what.

 

As a TOC controller, I can state that connections like this are not routinely held unless there is prior advice about known passengers on board the late running service.
Holding on the off chance causes more delay when none/one/two people require the connection that has potentially delayed a trainload.

The financial (Schedule 8) impact is not considered. What is looked at is what effect a delay to a service will have later on, in other words the bigger picture to the many, not the the few.

 

the TOC isnt going to hold a connection unless there is a very good reason or it is the last train of the day. Even then it is on best endeavours

 

Going back to the original post I am still confused as to why prompt departure of the 1951 to Matlock could not be seen as ‘necessary’. As I understand it the service comes across from Nottingham and uses Platform 5, which is the obvious platform in the new layout.
As soon as the 1951 is out of the way the following 1719 St Pancras-Derby (via Nottingham) is due to terminate, at 1955 - obviously a measurable ‘arrival’ time.

 

negotiate being the important word. TOCs do not give orders to signallers only requests !

 

Last winter (I.e. Before the Derby resignalling) I was on a late running XC northbound train. The Matlock service on a Sunday is two hourly, and was sent out in advance of the XC. However, the train manager informed us that anybody needed the connection would be provided with a taxi rather than a two hour wait on a cold December Derby station. ( The Alexandra wasn't mentioned as an alternative!)

On another topic I often change at Par for the Newquay train. Both the mainline train and the branch are GWR services. When I queried how long the Newquay train would be held for the connection I was told that the decision was made by zGWR control.

 

The TOC's operations supervisor at our place issues a daily document to the signalman indicating which platform should be used for each train, with subsequent amendments throughout the day as set swaps etc. are arranged. Any delays resulting from deviation from this plan are often dobbed as O-codes. It's maybe not an order, but it sounds rather more than a mere request to me!

 

I explicitly said that we were NOT being held to allow the XC to go ahead. Nothing went ahead of us, we just restarted again after a minute or two's wait. It is highly unlikely that there was anything ahead of us, because we would have seen it passing through Derby station. And as I have said, this has happened several times now. If you don't accept my hypothesis as to why trains are being held like this, from your obviously far greater knowledge of how the Derby signallers work, do you have an alternative explanation?

 

Cross City service not Cross Country service. Cross City is an electric service from the Aston direction. So my explanation still stands.

 

Noted, but in the context of the thread title this was not a ‘despatch error’. The platform staff appear to have had booked train in booked platform at booked time and ‘ready to start’. They would have known that another train was booked to immediately re-occupy the platform and to delay despatch would probably delay both trains. The platform staff are not signallers and not controllers. They did it by the book. (Spoken as a former Station Manager, used to defending his staff.)

 

I suspect the St Andrews being referred to is the siding between Derby station and LNW Jn, not the one around Bordesley - it’d definitely be some forward-thinking regulating in that case!

 

Punctuality is not the only measure of resilience. In fact Network Rail gets a lot of criticism about various infrastructure failures. Things like track circuits, point motors, individual track components, signal heads, etc. While plain rail has a long life many of the above listed will not last anything like as long. So at a busy nodal point, like Derby, it is sometimes most efficient to replace a complete layout in one blockade rather than piecemeal works over a long period. None of it can guarantee anything about the operational performance of TOCs and FOCs.

 

Highly unlikely but not impossible. The reasons for trains being held in certain locations are massively complicated and without individual details of dates and times of each occurrence it’s impossible to pluck a random reason out of thin air as you have suggested and say that is the cause. Sometimes it is easier to see a conspiracy when there is none

 

Except that by holding the Matlock (e.g.) to connect off the late-running XC you would also have to hold it long enough for people to get from platform to platform (including use of lifts where necessary) so further delay might occur.