Dysfunction at Derby, or mitigating circumstances?

[TheManOnThe172]

Could anyone with the right skills (and a little time to spare) have a look at movements in Derby station around 1230 today to tell me whether I have missed something.

1F30 London-Sheffield was 9 late, arriving 12:36:45
2A20 Nottingham-Matlock was sent out on time at 12:34 (2 mins 45 before the arrival of 1F30) only to sit at a signal north of Derby for 6 minutes (and then run behind 1F30).

That seems crazy - it didn't get 2A20 passengers to Duffield or subsequent stations any sooner than if service had waited say 5 minutes longer in the platform at Derby. It didn't get 1F30 heading north any quicker. But passengers from 1F30 ended up waiting 57 minutes for the next service.

EMR insist that they have no discretion but have to send out the Matlock train on time - they blame it on Network Rail. That is the Network Rail who spent £200m a few years back supposedly improving things at Derby. For Matlock passengers, that improvement seems to be to have the train, when it is going to be delayed, getting the MML northwards, wait north of the station rather than in the platform - causing many more nearly-an-hour waits at Derby.

Were there mitigating circumstances today, or was it as needlessly stupid as it seemed?

 

[Bow Fell]

Not needlessly stupid at all, completely the correct decision in reducing the overall delay.

1F30 booked Platform 3 1228/1230, however running +8 at the time.

1V09 also booked Platform 3 1235/1239. 1V09 given priority correctly into Platform 3 to avoid putting any delay into this.

2A20 booked to depart Platform 5 1234, by departing on time, this allows 1F30 running +8 to utilise platform 5, as platform 3 is now already occupied.

2A20 would have been delayed regardless, correct. However, no delay has been put into 1V09 which would have been inevitable had 1F30 not been replatformed.

Hindsight is wonderful thing, but if you can tell me how the trains should have been regulated, please go ahead

 

[TheManOnThe172]

Not needlessly stupid at all, completely the correct decision in reducing the overall delay.

Thanks for that - but how depressing that the extremely expensive remodelling seems not to have delivered even modest resilience.

 

[The Planner]

Thanks for that - but how depressing that the extremely expensive remodelling seems not to have delivered even modest resilience.

How much resilience do you put in though? Even though Derby is bi di throughout, you couldn't use 4 as the Cardiff Nottingham was there, the Sheffield St Pancras was in 6.

 

[800001]

Thanks for that - but how depressing that the extremely expensive remodelling seems not to have delivered even modest resilience.

What would you like them to of done to the station? Several more platforms?
As has been explained above the best options were undertaken.

 

[43055]

Not needlessly stupid at all, completely the correct decision in reducing the overall delay.

1F30 booked Platform 3 1228/1230, however running +8 at the time.

1V09 also booked Platform 3 1235/1239. 1V09 given priority correctly into Platform 3 to avoid putting any delay into this.

2A20 booked to depart Platform 5 1234, by departing on time, this allows 1F30 running +8 to utilise platform 5, as platform 3 is now already occupied.

2A20 would have been delayed regardless, correct. However, no delay has been put into 1V09 which would have been inevitable had 1F30 not been replatformed.

Hindsight is wonderful thing, but if you can tell me how the trains should have been regulated, please go ahead

Thanks for that - but how depressing that the extremely expensive remodelling seems not to have delivered even modest resilience.

Also got to consider the following Cross Country Service to Scotland and the Matlock's service back working:

Matlock service
Derby - on time
pass Ambergate Junction 1254 6 late
arrived Matlock 7 late with 2 mins before returning to Nottingham

Cross Country depart 1245:
Derby - on time
pass Ambergate Junction 1258 6 late

Basically very little room for delay as it is squeezed in between two fast services.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Derby needs to keep emptying it's platforms as since it's rebuild it is a little more tricky to operate when things go wrong

 

[TheManOnThe172]

I understand the pressure on platforms at Derby - but with long(ish) splittable platforms and some relatively short trains, isn't there scope to deliver greater resilience by sharing platforms?

The reason for having to send the 2A20 Matlock out on time (only to be held outside the station and go behind 1F30 to Sheffield) has been given as the need to clear platform 5.

I see why platform 5 needed to be clear. But why did the 2A20 to Matlock have to be in platform 5? I do understand that 2A20 has a long dwell at Derby, but the lateness of 1F30 was evident well before a platforming decision would have needed to be made for 2A20.

Is there any reason that the 2-coach 2A20 to Matlock couldn't have been put at the north end of platform 4, with the 3-coach 1M60 Cardiff to Nottingham reversing at the southern end? Would there even have been room for 2-coach Matlock and the 5-coach 1V09 Nottingham to Cardiff to have shared platform 3?

 

[800001]

I understand the pressure on platforms at Derby - but with long(ish) splittable platforms and some relatively short trains, isn't there scope to deliver greater resilience by sharing platforms?

The reason for having to send the 2A20 Matlock out on time (only to be held outside the station and go behind 1F30 to Sheffield) has been given as the need to clear platform 5.

I see why platform 5 needed to be clear. But why did the 2A20 to Matlock have to be in platform 5? I do understand that 2A20 has a long dwell at Derby, but the lateness of 1F30 was evident well before a platforming decision would have needed to be made for 2A20.

Is there any reason that the 2-coach 2A20 to Matlock couldn't have been put at the north end of platform 4, with the 3-coach 1M60 Cardiff to Nottingham reversing at the southern end? Would there even have been room for 2-coach Matlock and the 5-coach 1V09 Nottingham to Cardiff to have shared platform 3?

You’ve had time to think this through, often a signaller covering an area larger than just the station, will have a matter of seconds to make a decision.
Hindsight is a fantastic thing.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

I understand that signalling can be tricky. But we are not talking about an airport having to take a diversion it wasn't expecting at a few minutes' notice or a heart surgeon having to deal with a sudden massive loss of blood. In real emergencies, of course one accepts that it is OK to deliver an outcome that is safe but (with hindsight) sub-optimal.

But a London-Sheffield train running 8 minutes late into Derby is not an unforseeable emergency. It happens quite frequently, and surely someone should have sat down when the timetable was unveiled to work out plans for what to do in this and a number of other predictable disturbances.

Of course, the resultant plans might not be applicable every time: irregular freight movements will certainly limit the options at some points in the day. But when a perfectly common disturbance happens at a time of day when there is nothing out of the ordinary happening through Derby, surely we ought to expect something better than a safe-but-suboptimal outcome that is made up on the spur of the moment.

 

[Spartacus]

I understand the pressure on platforms at Derby - but with long(ish) splittable platforms and some relatively short trains, isn't there scope to deliver greater resilience by sharing platforms?

The reason for having to send the 2A20 Matlock out on time (only to be held outside the station and go behind 1F30 to Sheffield) has been given as the need to clear platform 5.

I see why platform 5 needed to be clear. But why did the 2A20 to Matlock have to be in platform 5? I do understand that 2A20 has a long dwell at Derby, but the lateness of 1F30 was evident well before a platforming decision would have needed to be made for 2A20.

Is there any reason that the 2-coach 2A20 to Matlock couldn't have been put at the north end of platform 4, with the 3-coach 1M60 Cardiff to Nottingham reversing at the southern end? Would there even have been room for 2-coach Matlock and the 5-coach 1V09 Nottingham to Cardiff to have shared platform 3?

2A20 has to use either 5 or 6. If it uses 3 it's arrival is before 1N11's departure, and it's departure's the same time as 1V09's departure, and if it uses platform 4 or 3 any train coming in on top of it would get a delay due to coming into an occupied platform, something that has caused problems in the past. If 2A20's in 4b makes 1M60's arrival very tight with both 2A20 and 1V09's departures. Replatforming on the day, especially when the next train is about 30 miles away, is going to cause issues.

Given 1F30's lateness if 2A20 was held in 4b to follow 1F30 that would either delay 2A20 further or delay 1M60 as they'd both be wanting to depart at 12:40.

But a London-Sheffield train running 8 minutes late into Derby is not an unforseeable emergency. It happens quite frequently, and surely someone should have sat down when the timetable was unveiled to work out plans for what to do in this and a number of other predictable disturbances.

You have train regulating policies, and you can build in recovery time, but arranging timetables and platform allocations based on 'what ifs' is the way to madness. The Sheffield's no more likely to be late than the 1V, 1N or 1M. Youy're robbing Peter to pay Paul before you even know if you're in debt to him.