If it's a terminal station then the train crew are still there until they depart. Passengers at a terminal station should be leaving the station or waiting to get on a train. At a through station such as St James Park characters of a dubious nature have an excuse to remain on a platform.
Shalford is a through station. Bedwyn is a through, unstaffed station where DOO trains regularly terminate. Probably it was cut short at Exeter Central because of very few passengers.
Not only that but Shalford and Bedwyn are far more remote, so arguably far more dangerous. Last year quite a few GWR services terminated at Shalford during the day too.
An inner city station is far more dangerous. Exeter along with Torquay, Plymouth, and Newquay is a county lines drop off point.
Why is a terminating service more at risk than a through service?
Nottingham driver depot will be losing a significant number of diagrams to facilitate 170 training and route learning. Remains to be seen what the timetable will look like.
To me it depends what they do.
Do any of these ideas actually save any driver diagrams?
that is a good question, I suspect it will mean a re-writing of the diagrams. If I take Nottingham- Mansfield it takes the train / crew around 2 hours. But the unit then goes to Worksop. Understand your point the crew could go to Liverpool next. But surely combining such cuts it would be possible to eliminate diagrams?
Whilst the saving in crew from such changes is rarely proportionate to the reduction in train miles etc., there would undoubtedly be some saving.
Generally to eliminate a diagram you'd need to cancel all of the work, unless you can find partial cover but then that rather defeats the point. Cutting a service back short isn't necessarily going to do that.
It isn't.
Would make no difference. Stations being manned or otherwise is of no consequence.
Still degrading a service for little point. Takes no longer to tip out at St James as Exeter Central.
some are 3-car instead of 6, but better than nothing.I imagine that this is the case, however it may need the entire depot's diagrams to be re-written and approved again. In general I think this would only happen at a timetable change date and would take some resources to achieve.
Rewriting an entire depot's diagrams is a massive job, but there is no need for approval if it is implemented as an STP timetable. It's then equivalent to engineering works.
Indeed I would agree there. The next obvious question I would have is, is STP work equivalently flexible in terms of the start and finish times and shift length etc? Indeed I have absolutely no idea what practice would be in this case, I'm just pointing out that it's generally easier to save unit diagrams than crew diagrams because the units will do any work they're technically capable of (correct electrification type, suitable performance characteristics etc) and cleared for, and don't have "rights".
Obviously this depends on the conditions that have been agreed, but when you have a depot as large as Nottingham, it's generally not going to be impossible to fit a reduced set of STP diagrams into the existing roster. EMR have been quoted as having 2-2.5 hours spare movement for regional drivers, so that gives a decent level of flexibility to reallocate work.
There's provision under the Covid agreement, at our place at least, for all STP diagrams to be scrutinised - not least because changes on this scale really aren't equivalent to the consequences of engineering work! Indeed, one clause in our T&Cs explicitly limits the flexibility if it's a change not related to engineering works.
So much for learning the lessons from May 2018 TT fiasco.
I would imagine that’s long forgotten within the industry by now. Has been a couple of things that appeared to conspire against EMR though such as crew shortage & unit availability.
