Is "Recovery Time" an unfair waste of a passenger's lifetime?

[route:oxford]

Throughout the Network, there's little bits of recovery time padded through the timetables.

The one I probably notice most often, as I mentioned in the XC thread, is the 15 minutes sat at Wolverhampton on the Edinburgh-Birmingham-Euston services. It comes immediately after the longish wait at Crewe.

Is it fair to take those 15 minutes from an individual just for the pretence of a reliable timetable on those odd occasions when there is a problem?

 

[Ianno87]

It prevents a far, far greater number of passengers collectively wasting very many more minutes if the train is late into Euston and creates knock on delays to significantly more, busier services.

 

[Domh245]

It also assumes that removing the 'recovery time' means that it will continue to have a path going forward. The risks of these long services which have been formed from several previous trains in earlier timetables is that they don't always have ideal pathing, and trying to fix that would involve major recasts around the country.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Throughout the Network, there's little bits of recovery time padded through the timetables.

The one I probably notice most often, as I mentioned in the XC thread, is the 15 minutes sat at Wolverhampton on the Edinburgh-Birmingham-Euston services. It comes immediately after the longish wait at Crewe.

Is it fair to take those 15 minutes from an individual just for the pretence of a reliable timetable on those odd occasions when there is a problem?

It's not really recovery time, it's just the result of the former one per hour Wolverhampton - Euston service being combined with the Scotland - Birmingham service to give MK and Coventry a direct Scottish service. Presumably, any re-timing would impact other TOC's services - particularly the XC Manchester which overtakes it at Wolves.

 

[Anvil1984]

Throughout the Network, there's little bits of recovery time padded through the timetables.

The one I probably notice most often, as I mentioned in the XC thread, is the 15 minutes sat at Wolverhampton on the Edinburgh-Birmingham-Euston services. It comes immediately after the longish wait at Crewe.

Is it fair to take those 15 minutes from an individual just for the pretence of a reliable timetable on those odd occasions when there is a problem?

In a lot of the cases its not "recovery time" but time spent waiting for the allocated path. Wolverhampton to Birmingham and beyond is a busy section so it might have been the best slot offered for that service. Also it allows Avanti to have an even 20 minute Birmingham to Euston service by holding it back at Wolves for a bit otherwise it would be clogging a platform up at New Street. XC had similar problems on the services from Birmingham to the North East, they wanted quicker services but until recently couldn't obtain the paths so had some waits at Sheffield, York and I think Derby in some cases

 

[StephenHunter]

It's pretty handy for sleeper trains, as otherwise they will arrive far too early at their destination.

 

[route:oxford]

It prevents a far, far greater number of passengers collectively wasting very many more minutes if the train is late into Euston and creates knock on delays to significantly more, busier services.

How do you calculate the balance? 47 trains a week, say average 250 passengers per train across the day, average 12 minute wait at Wolverhampton, that's over 7 million passenger minutes wasted a year.

It also assumes that removing the 'recovery time' means that it will continue to have a path going forward. The risks of these long services which have been formed from several previous trains in earlier timetables is that they don't always have ideal pathing, and trying to fix that would involve major recasts around the country.

Would it be so wrong to try and fix it?

When was the last time Network Rail used all the data available to them with passenger flows, stock availability, stock performance to prepare (even an experimental) full new British passenger timetable?

 

[The Planner]

How do you calculate the balance? 47 trains a week, say average 250 passengers per train across the day, average 12 minute wait at Wolverhampton, that's over 7 million passenger minutes wasted a year.



Would it be so wrong to try and fix it?

When was the last time Network Rail used all the data available to them with passenger flows, stock availability, stock performance to prepare (even an experimental) full new British passenger timetable?

May 18 was the last big one we tried, didn't end well, so expecting to do the entire country is unlikely (as well as taking years to prepare). As for the Wolves example, that was explained by @Merle Haggard if you didn't sit at Wolves for 15 minutes you would do at New St to keep the existing timetable south of there. Stock isn't Network Rails concern in the main, we don't run trains.

 

[Ianno87]

In a lot of the cases its not "recovery time" but time spent waiting for the allocated path. Wolverhampton to Birmingham and beyond is a busy section so it might have been the best slot offered for that service. Also it allows Avanti to have an even 20 minute Birmingham to Euston service by holding it back at Wolves for a bit otherwise it would be clogging a platform up at New Street. XC had similar problems on the services from Birmingham to the North East, they wanted quicker services but until recently couldn't obtain the paths so had some waits at Sheffield, York and I think Derby in some cases

It is recovery time in that it permits the train to use a shorter "West Midlands" turnround time at Euston and work back sooner than would be possible than if it needed a longer "Scotland" turnround time.

 

[arbeia]

Always remember years ago Cross Country trains from leaving the West of England main line onto the Newquay branch were given more time non stop than the local stopper!

 

[Ianno87]

Always remember years ago Cross Country trains from leaving the West of England main line onto the Newquay branch were given more time non stop than the local stopper!

Because the line speed for them is lower on account of being heavier.

 

[Anvil1984]

It is recovery time in that it permits the train to use a shorter "West Midlands" turnround time at Euston and work back sooner than would be possible than if it needed a longer "Scotland" turnround time.

Perhaps but in the context of the OPs post (recovery time to fudge PPM) I feel there is a difference

 

[Ianno87]

I prefer the more accurate term "better guarantee of the chance of a right time start back from Euston on a limited turnround time (by absorbing risk mid-route)" than "PPM Fudge", because there is a difference.

 

[Anvil1984]

I prefer the more accurate term "better guarantee of the chance of a right time start back from Euston on a limited turnround time (by absorbing risk mid-route)" than "PPM Fudge", because there is a difference.

I agree with you! I'm just using the OPs original posts context into it. I disagree with his comment that it's "for the pretence of a reliable timetable".

 

[jopsuk]

is some of it connected with the desire for clock-face timetables? In that there may be times of day when trains are quieter that it's much easier to reliably get station duties done and dispatch on time, which can mean they pick up delays that strategic longer stops smooth out, but at other times of day (or even other days of the week) they get clear runs hitting every departure on time?

 

[Trainfan2019]

I find the recovery time handy at my station for my normal time train to work incase I get to the station slightly late. This is whenever normality was pre-coronavirus.

 

[Bald Rick]

Good grief. This again.

Throughout the Network, there's little bits of recovery time padded through the timetables.

The one I probably notice most often, as I mentioned in the XC thread, is the 15 minutes sat at Wolverhampton on the Edinburgh-Birmingham-Euston services. It comes immediately after the longish wait at Crewe.

Is it fair to take those 15 minutes from an individual just for the pretence of a reliable timetable on those odd occasions when there is a problem?

This isn’t ’recovery time’. It is time at the station, to enable the paths north and south of Wolverhampton to fit together. Without it the timetable simply wouldn’t work. It also comes in very handy; numerous times I have caught one of these trains south from Wolverhampton, it has been late for whatever reason, and departed Wolves on time.

In other news, every time I fly to Geneva, it takes between 60-75 minutes. And yet the flight is scheduled for 2 hours.

Would it be so wrong to try and fix it?

When was the last time Network Rail used all the data available to them with passenger flows, stock availability, stock performance to prepare (even an experimental) full new British passenger timetable?

Almost all operators do this every six months. They are just in the final stages of doing it now for the timetable that starts in May 2021. Timetable production is an incredibly intricate science. I well remember the entire Cambrian line having to be retimetleed when Birmingham departures from Euston were moved from xx10/40 to xx15/45.

I think, perhaps you should apply for a job in the NR capacity planning team in Milton Keynes, and after your training you’ll be able to work it all out for yourself.

 

[StephenHunter]

You generally don't get a major 'recast' unless the line itself undergoes a major upgrade in capacity, such as electrification or a new train fleet.

 

[6Gman]

Throughout the Network, there's little bits of recovery time padded through the timetables.

The one I probably notice most often, as I mentioned in the XC thread, is the 15 minutes sat at Wolverhampton on the Edinburgh-Birmingham-Euston services. It comes immediately after the longish wait at Crewe.

Is it fair to take those 15 minutes from an individual just for the pretence of a reliable timetable on those odd occasions when there is a problem?

I think you need to distinguish between recovery time, pathing allowances and standing time at stations.

And, as far as I can see, these trains are allowed a 3 minute stop at Crewe, which is hardly a "longish wait" given the number of passengers who alight and entrain at Crewe.

 

[Ianno87]

You generally don't get a major 'recast' unless the line itself undergoes a major upgrade in capacity, such as electrification or a new train fleet.

Otherwise, the consequence of making one thing better requires making about 10 other things worse, typically.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Recovery time at the end of a schedule is just dishonest, though it doesn't actually take anyone's time as they can disembark at the actual arrival time, not the theoretical one 5 minutes later.

Slack in schedules overall, including at intermediate stations, in order to ensure robust connections and reliable operations, is key to a punctual, reliable, connective network. You need to look no further than SBB to see the positive effects of this in action.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Recovery time at the end of a schedule is just dishonest, though it doesn't actually take anyone's time as they can disembark at the actual arrival time, not the theoretical one 5 minutes later.

Slack in schedules overall, including at intermediate stations, in order to ensure robust connections and reliable operations, is key to a punctual, reliable, connective network. You need to look no further than SBB to see the positive effects of this in action.

SBB-CFF-FFS were famous for having 99% punctuality because of this, but that was 99% within 4 minutes and 59 seconds of schedule. I think the figure to within one minute was closer to 80%. Still pretty decent though.

 

[DarloRich]

Throughout the Network, there's little bits of recovery time padded through the timetables.

The one I probably notice most often, as I mentioned in the XC thread, is the 15 minutes sat at Wolverhampton on the Edinburgh-Birmingham-Euston services. It comes immediately after the longish wait at Crewe.

Is it fair to take those 15 minutes from an individual just for the pretence of a reliable timetable on those odd occasions when there is a problem?

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation at play here. That situation is a result of sqaushing two services together to offer another service to Scotland.

You could always pay more for the quicker train via the trent valley

Recovery time at the end of a schedule is just dishonest, though it doesn't actually take anyone's time as they can disembark at the actual arrival time, not the theoretical one 5 minutes later.

Slack in schedules overall, including at intermediate stations, in order to ensure robust connections and reliable operations, is key to a punctual, reliable, connective network. You need to look no further than SBB to see the positive effects of this in action.

While I dont disagree SBB run substantially fewer trains under a very different operating framework. Is there a swiss example of the mixed traffic chaos of wcml south?

 

[DarloRich]

How do you calculate the balance? 47 trains a week, say average 250 passengers per train across the day, average 12 minute wait at Wolverhampton, that's over 7 million passenger minutes wasted a year.



Would it be so wrong to try and fix it?

When was the last time Network Rail used all the data available to them with passenger flows, stock availability, stock performance to prepare (even an experimental) full new British passenger timetable?

What you suggest as idle curiosity/experimental investigation is the work of a massive number of people for upwards of a year which may well turn out to be abortive. How do you balance the costs of that?

I will leave the explanation of rhe complexities of creating a new timetable and dealing with the myriad stakeholders and interested parties to the experts


Ps: the "balance" you refer to is a simple choice in this case - train or no train. We have a very congested network and nowhere more so than south of Birmingham on the WCML. it is bursting at the seams. That it runs at all is miraculous and there is so little slack that delays quickly mushroom.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Is there a swiss example of the mixed traffic chaos of wcml south?

Genève-Lausanne? I know some of the Genève end is 4-track now, and some of the Lausanne end might be too, but you have several passenger services an hour including stoppers and some freight over what is still only two-track for the middle section.

 

[DarloRich]

Genève-Lausanne? I know some of the Genève end is 4-track now, and some of the Lausanne end might be too, but you have several passenger services an hour including stoppers and some freight over what is still only two-track for the middle section.

I doubt it is as busy as Hanslope > Euston which is 4 track all the way

I have only ever been on swiss mountain railways so will bow to superior knowledge

 

[Jamesrob637]

I doubt it is as busy as Hanslope > Euston which is 4 track all the way

I have only ever been on swiss mountain railways so will bow to superior knowledge

I'm almost certain that circa 2010 an IC2000 Genève-Lausanne-Bern-Zürich-Sankt Gallen (flagship 200km/h double decker).could've easily covered the 70km from Genève to Lausanne in 30min but the schedule allowed 34min for padding, to keep things firmly on topic rather than a simple comparison in capacity which is not 100% relevant However I wouldn't know how long they're timed for a decade later.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

In simple terms, it might allow for crew changes, restock and straight out time recovery at Wolverhampton, it's necessary due to the the 2 track railway between WVH and BHM as well.
But all in all we realistically want a faster service! By losing those 15 minutes off a journey time its going to make the service unreliable sadly, resulting in many more delay repays both southbound and northbound departing EUS!

We might be upset or frustrated with it but I can assure you Avanti aren't going to force a change that could cost them millions in lost revenue

 

[class26]

Because the line speed for them is lower on account of being heavier.

And also because a longer train takes more time to clear a speed restriction. At 15 mph that can be some time !
It`s the same for HST`s going to Skegness. They are allowed slightly more time than the 156 / 8`s. i never understood this until I rode on one last summer. The HST travels at the same speed`s as the 156 / 158 but being significantly longer takes more time to clear the restrictions such as the 15 mph entering Boston or the 10 mph entering Skegness.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm almost certain that circa 2010 an IC2000 Genève-Lausanne-Bern-Zürich-Sankt Gallen (flagship 200km/h double decker).could've easily covered the 70km from Genève to Lausanne in 30min but the schedule allowed 34min for padding, to keep things firmly on topic rather than a simple comparison in capacity which is not 100% relevant However I wouldn't know how long they're timed for a decade later.

Last time I did Geneève - Lausanne, the train sat at the latter for quarter of an hour while a defective coach was locked out. Needless to say, we arrived in Sion on time, as all the subsequent station calls were done in 1 minute rather than the booked 3-4.