Despatching error, or dysfunctional measurement system?

[TheManOnThe172]

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.

I accept that if the "window of opportunity" (ie how long you can hold the departure before it causes delay) is two or three minutes, it could be reasonable to deny the connection because it might take longer to get all the passengers transferred.

But in this case, the Matlock train could have been held for 7 minutes without any extra delay at Duffield and onwards - and Derby has a minimum interconnect time of 6 minutes.

 

[Tomnick]

I accept that if the "window of opportunity" (ie how long you can hold the departure before it causes delay) is two or three minutes, it could be reasonable to deny the connection because it might take longer to get all the passengers transferred.

But in this case, the Matlock train could have been held for 7 minutes without any extra delay at Duffield and onwards - and Derby has a minimum interconnect time of 6 minutes.

But the Leeds train didn’t arrive until 1953, so those six minutes take it to 1959, meaning an eight minute delay. I suspect that they actually put the Matlock across into the loop on the Down side before Breadsall too, so it was quite possibly already on the move before the regulating decision was made.

Incidentally, I see that there was a London - Sheffield right behind it that picked up a six minute delay to Ambergate.

 

[Spartacus]

But the Leeds train didn’t arrive until 1953, so those six minutes take it to 1959, meaning an eight minute delay. I suspect that they actually put the Matlock across into the loop on the Down side before Breadsall too, so it was quite possibly already on the move before the regulating decision was made.

Incidentally, I see that there was a London - Sheffield right behind it that picked up a six minute delay to Ambergate.

Just what I was going to point out, hold at Matlock for the XC and you probably make the return Matlock late too, as it would almost certainly be held at Derby for the EMT to Sheffield. Holding things in platforms for unbooked connections is generally a bad thing anyway, who know's what's going to happen to that late runner, it might end up stood in the platform for 20 minutes waiting the BTP to turf someone off..

 

[whhistle]

But last night saw something that is even more dysfunctional: the 1951 Matlock (2A62) was (according to RealtimeTrains) sent out on time, only to be held north of the station to let a late-running Leeds train (IE63) go ahead. I was through Derby an hour later and there seemed no issue with platform availability as a possible reason for needing to despatch bang on time.

This happens quite a lot.
One reason is it's easy to see the delay reason, rather than having the circus of the station having to explain why it left late.
Another is so the train leaves on time. Keeping it in the station like that can mean delays as passengers try and board when dispatching is eventually taking place.
Although it seems to be signaller preference rather than any standard across all Network Rail.