Merseyrail semi-fast running antics.

[Birkonian]

Yes seems reasonable, especially as it was only 3 minutes late at that point.

Service decisions can be a mixture of:

• Run fast/non-stop
• Terminate short/Start forward
• Divert
• Cancel and reform
• Unit swaps (where available)

Ideally you don't hammer the same passengers every time but depending on the infrastructure/service/crew available and the nature of the late-running that is not always possible.
Also where a reduced (and tight) timetable is in operation, controllers pretty much have their hands tied on what they can do. It's either let everything run late or lead to 30 minute gaps (less in reality due to the late running anyway) in service and/or cancellations. This might also be true - not in Merseyrail's case - where only 2 out of 4 lines are available for engineering reasons so running fast may not be suitable.

My local station is Spital, which is always missed out for semi-fast. I pay the same precept to Merseytravel via Council Tax as other Wirral residents but get a sub-standard service. On the day in question I took the earlier train to Chester, expecting it to stop at Chester. When travelling from Spital to Liverpool/Chester for a connection I always have to allow extra time for the frequent cancellations/semi fast running which is annoying.

Just to reiterate what was said about the new trams . “They are faster in acceleration and will take minutes of the chester service” someone was obviously not telling the truth.

Plus one now delayed again.

Opening and closing of doors/setting off is definitely slower with the new trains which negates any savings due to better acceleration.

 

[Justin Smith]

And what about the hundreds of other people who might be inconvenienced if the train ran late all day?

Controllers on the day have to react to what they have in front of them; of course the timetable is too tight, but incidents happen and the service needs to be recovered.

A train being a few minutes late is inconvenient but probably not significantly so.
A train being cancelled, and so 30 minutes late (on a two per hour timetable) is much more likely to have serious consequences for some passengers.
In my view the only time when missing out stops, or cancelling a train, should be considered is if it is actually behind, or only just in front of, the next timetabled service.
That said, as I stated earlier, the real villains are the idiots who timetable services with no layover at the terminus (to allow for late running and make the timetable robust).

 

[Krokodil]

That said, as I stated earlier, the real villains are the idiots who timetable services with no layover at the terminus (to allow for late running and make the timetable robust).

Are they "idiots" as you term them? Or are they just trying to diagram what they can with the resources available?

 

[Horizon22]

A train being a few minutes late is inconvenient but probably not significantly so.
A train being cancelled, and so 30 minutes late (on a two per hour timetable) is much more likely to have serious consequences for some passengers.
In my view the only time when missing out stops, or cancelling a train, should be considered is if it is actually behind, or only just in front of, the next timetabled service.
That said, as I stated earlier, the real villains are the idiots who timetable services with no layover at the terminus (to allow for late running and make the timetable robust).

If a trains runs late continuously it means more people might miss connections for longer. It immediately affects some people yes, but overall the service recovers better. If you can’t understand that, then there isn’t really anything to add. All public transport companies (not just rail) will have methods to return to the booked timetable which means some inconvenience for some people. Letting it continue is reckless.

Also you say a “30 minute gap” but if the train is running 15 minutes late it would only actually be a 15 minute gap anyway whether the stop was cancelled or not.

For example: If you want to get the train at 2000 and it is running 15 minutes late it would be due at 2015; nothing will make it earlier for your station (unless it runs fast to there). If the stop is cancelled, the next service would be 2030, which is only 15 minutes later in reality to the running of the day.

 

[Falcon1200]

Everyone, of course, wants trains to run on time, but things happen (and always have and always will) which cause delay. Sometimes that delay might have no repercussions, in which case no action need be taken. In other circumstances however doing nothing is the absolute worst option; As a Controller I sometimes arranged for late running trains to miss stops (in Scotland, not Merseyside) because if nothing was done the late train would just get later, would delay other services, and would eventually lead to part or full cancellations. Yes, it would be wonderful to have sufficient spare capacity to allow extended turnrounds, standby trains and Traincrew, etc, but that is not the situation we are in, and doubtfully ever will be. Control has to do what it can to minimise overall delay and therefore impact the least number of passengers.

 

[jamesst]

Everyone, of course, wants trains to run on time, but things happen (and always have and always will) which cause delay. Sometimes that delay might have no repercussions, in which case no action need be taken. In other circumstances however doing nothing is the absolute worst option; As a Controller I sometimes arranged for late running trains to miss stops (in Scotland, not Merseyside) because if nothing was done the late train would just get later, would delay other services, and would eventually lead to part or full cancellations. Yes, it would be wonderful to have sufficient spare capacity to allow extended turnrounds, standby trains and Traincrew, etc, but that is not the situation we are in, and doubtfully ever will be. Control has to do what it can to minimise overall delay and therefore impact the least number of passengers.

The most sensible post so far

 

[Justin Smith]

If a trains runs late continuously it means more people might miss connections for longer. It immediately affects some people yes, but overall the service recovers better. If you can’t understand that, then there isn’t really anything to add. All public transport companies (not just rail) will have methods to return to the booked timetable which means some inconvenience for some people. Letting it continue is reckless.

Also you say a “30 minute gap” but if the train is running 15 minutes late it would only actually be a 15 minute gap anyway whether the stop was cancelled or not.

For example: If you want to get the train at 2000 and it is running 15 minutes late it would be due at 2015; nothing will make it earlier for your station (unless it runs fast to there). If the stop is cancelled, the next service would be 2030, which is only 15 minutes later in reality to the running of the day.

If I were waiting for a train which I need to catch to make say an appointment or catch a connection and it went straight through the station without stopping I'd be hopping mad, absolutely livid.

Are they "idiots" as you term them? Or are they just trying to diagram what they can with the resources available?

A timetable must be reliable so the passenger can rely on it or it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I have always thought making a terminal train turn straight back around with minimal layover is just asking for trouble, and the passenger should not be the one to suffer, it's not their fault.

 

[Haywain]

For example: If you want to get the train at 2000 and it is running 15 minutes late it would be due at 2015; nothing will make it earlier for your station (unless it runs fast to there). If the stop is cancelled, the next service would be 2030, which is only 15 minutes later in reality to the running of the day.

You may arrive 15 minutes later than if the stop wasn’t cancelled, but you are still arriving 30 minutes late.

 

[amahy]

My local station is Spital, which is always missed out for semi-fast. I pay the same precept to Merseytravel via Council Tax as other Wirral residents but get a sub-standard service. On the day in question I took the earlier train to Chester, expecting it to stop at Chester. When travelling from Spital to Liverpool/Chester for a connection I always have to allow extra time for the frequent cancellations/semi fast running which is annoying.

This raises an interesting point: why do people using smaller, less served stations have to pay the same train fares as people using larger train stations, with far more flexibility in terms of number of train services, and therefore a greater choice of trains to use?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This raises an interesting point: why do people using smaller, less served stations have to pay the same train fares as people using larger train stations, with far more flexibility in terms of number of train services, and therefore a greater choice of trains to use?

Because doing otherwise would create some almighty fares anomalies?

 

[Djgr]

My local station is Spital, which is always missed out for semi-fast. I pay the same precept to Merseytravel via Council Tax as other Wirral residents but get a sub-standard service.

Of course many West Wirral residents might consider that you are getting a far superior service than they are (Comparing Spital to Heswall).

Consider in Beeching times that Spital was for the chop!

 

[Bikeman78]

You can ever only do things with good intentions; sometimes the unexpected happens or there was an unforseen risk and decisions are reliant on a lot of actors working in harmony and this of course can never always be the case. In your specific example a train might be 8 minutes late at Barnes, but could have easily lost more time on route due to being out of sequence / lost path. Sometimes decisions are taken which might appear nonsensical if you do not have all the caveats and full picture; even train crew think this sometimes.

If we could all do things with perfect hindsight, that would be great! Quite different to being in a busy control room with decisions having to be made with just a few seconds decision time.

With respect, it had been making up time the whole way around the Kingston loop. It started off around 15 late. It is four track from Barnes, so the up Windsor could have overtaken.

Going back 20-25 years, I can recall planning entire days from a paper timetable. More often than not, it all went to plan. I certainly don't recall trains running fast because they were eight minutes late. The service pattern on SWT was very similar to now.

 

[Horizon22]

You may arrive 15 minutes later than if the stop wasn’t cancelled, but you are still arriving 30 minutes late.

Of course, but in reality the best you could have been is 15 minutes late anyway.

With respect, it had been making up time the whole way around the Kingston loop. It started off around 15 late. It is four track from Barnes, so the up Windsor could have overtaken.

Going back 20-25 years, I can recall planning entire days from a paper timetable. More often than not, it all went to plan. I certainly don't recall trains running fast because they were eight minutes late. The service pattern on SWT was very similar to now.

To get down from 15 to 8 minutes late would suggest some amended working already or some very generous padding in the timetable.

I would argue you are looking at things with rose-tinted glasses! Perhaps there was more reluctance to make service decisions or the risk deemed more acceptable. Sure it could “overtake” but at what impact to other services booked on those lines?

Essentially decisions are made and are they always perfect? No. But it is easily to look back in hindsight and detached and criticise.

 

[Falcon1200]

If I were waiting for a train which I need to catch to make say an appointment or catch a connection and it went straight through the station without stopping I'd be hopping mad, absolutely livid.

Would you not also be hopping mad if you boarded a late running train but action which could have been taken to reduce the delay, or indeed prevent it becoming even greater, was not, resulting in the appointment or connection being missed?!!

 

[M28361M]

This thread brought back memories of the time I boarded a late running train at Chester which was ordered to run non-stop from Hooton to Hamilton Square.

A spirited run up the Wirral Line meant that by Birkenhead Central it had not only caught up with the timetable but was running early, so we sat at Birkenhead Central for a couple of minutes waiting for our path round the loop, with the doors firmly locked shut and a load of frustrated passengers on the platform unable to board.

 

[Ianigsy]

This thread brought back memories of the time I boarded a late running train at Chester which was ordered to run non-stop from Hooton to Hamilton Square.

A spirited run up the Wirral Line meant that by Birkenhead Central it had not only caught up with the timetable but was running early, so we sat at Birkenhead Central for a couple of minutes waiting for our path round the loop, with the doors firmly locked shut and a load of frustrated passengers on the platform unable to board.

Which brings up my other bugbear- on time trains for West Kirby or New Brighton being held up so that Chester trains go through the loop in the right order!

In fairness, at least a 14 minute deficit can apparently be made up between Birkenhead and Chester (but then in steam days Chester to Woodside was regularly done in half an hour).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This thread brought back memories of the time I boarded a late running train at Chester which was ordered to run non-stop from Hooton to Hamilton Square.

A spirited run up the Wirral Line meant that by Birkenhead Central it had not only caught up with the timetable but was running early, so we sat at Birkenhead Central for a couple of minutes waiting for our path round the loop, with the doors firmly locked shut and a load of frustrated passengers on the platform unable to board.

There have been a couple of posts in this thread mentioning similar incidents where a fast-running train ended up sitting in a platform but not opening the doors. I understand the motive for running a train fast in the first place, but it does seem incredibly stupid and incredibly 'jobsworth' to not allow the train to open the doors if it ends up actually stopped at a platform where people are expecting it to stop (I don't know whether that would be the driver's or the signaller's decision in this kind of situation).

I recall about 15 or so years ago the opposite happened: A SouthEastern train I was on that had left London Bridge, next scheduled stop Lewisham, got blocked by congestion just outside Lewisham, and by chance ended up sitting in the platforms at St John's. The driver announced that, although it wasn't scheduled to stop there, he was unlocking the doors in case anyone for Lewisham wanted to alight and walk the short distance. I thought that was an amazing example of staff thinking on the spot about how to best help passengers during the disruption. I wonder if that kind of flexibility would still be allowed by the railway bureaucracy today?

 

[Krokodil]

but it does seem incredibly stupid and incredibly 'jobsworth' to not allow the train to open the doors if it ends up actually stopped at a platform where people are expecting it to stop (I don't know whether that would be the driver's or the signaller's decision in this kind of situation).

Opening the doors at a place you are not booked to call at - or where Control has instructed you not to call at - without their permission to do so is treated as seriously as failing to call at a booked stop.

 

[Horizon22]

Opening the doors at a place you are not booked to call at - or where Control has instructed you not to call at - without their permission to do so is treated as seriously as failing to call at a booked stop.

Indeed. However there is no harm in a driver / guard phoning up saying “I’m at a stand here, can I open the doors”. Unless there’s some sort of safety (e.g. an evacuation or station not open) reason why not, that’s fine.

Helpful when there’s an issue or disruption ahead and the train might be there for some time. If it’s just a minute or so, perhaps not worth it.

 

[Krokodil]

The driver of a DOO service (as Merseyrail sort of is) is unlikely to be aware of how long they will be held for, at least until if/when the signaller actually answers. Odds are that by the time that Control pick up the phone the signal will be green.

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed. However there is no harm in a driver / guard phoning up saying “I’m at a stand here, can I open the doors”. Unless there’s some sort of safety (e.g. an evacuation or station not open) reason why not, that’s fine.

Helpful when there’s an issue or disruption ahead and the train might be there for some time. If it’s just a minute or so, perhaps not worth it.

In the midst of disruption sufficiently bad to justify holding trains in platforms, I don't rate the chances of Control actually answering the phone, nor is it sensible to expect them to do so whilst trying to deal with actual issues! Stopping out of course without Control's authority is certainly treated as an operational incident; to suggest that opening the doors once the signaller's confirmed that the train's being held in a platform for the foreseeable future is an operational incident is just silly. My Guard and I have taken that decision ourselves on more than one occasion, and I'd comfortably justify it on safety grounds (with potentially increasingly frustrated passengers) if there was ever any comeback, not that there ever has been.

 

[Horizon22]

In the midst of disruption sufficiently bad to justify holding trains in platforms, I don't rate the chances of Control actually answering the phone, nor is it sensible to expect them to do so whilst trying to deal with actual issues! Stopping out of course without Control's authority is certainly treated as an operational incident; to suggest that opening the doors once the signaller's confirmed that the train's being held in a platform for the foreseeable future is an operational incident is just silly. My Guard and I have taken that decision ourselves on more than one occasion, and I'd comfortably justify it on safety grounds (with potentially increasingly frustrated passengers) if there was ever any comeback, not that there ever has been.

No I doubt there would be any comeback. I would still try to call and if no response make a judgment, log it and be prepared to justify it if required. The signaller might give that permission too anyway, but if it's a staffed station it may cause confusion for them, particularly on a DOO service.

 

[Justin Smith]

Would you not also be hopping mad if you boarded a late running train but action which could have been taken to reduce the delay, or indeed prevent it becoming even greater, was not, resulting in the appointment or connection being missed?!!

No, I would not be hopping mad, or certainly not as hopping mad.

DynamicSpirit said:
but it does seem incredibly stupid and incredibly 'jobsworth' to not allow the train to open the doors if it ends up actually stopped at a platform where people are expecting it to stop (I don't know whether that would be the driver's or the signaller's decision in this kind of situation).

Opening the doors at a place you are not booked to call at - or where Control has instructed you not to call at - without their permission to do so is treated as seriously as failing to call at a booked stop.

Does that not imply a certain lack of common sense.....

 

[Krokodil]

In the midst of disruption sufficiently bad to justify holding trains in platforms, I don't rate the chances of Control actually answering the phone, nor is it sensible to expect them to do so whilst trying to deal with actual issues! Stopping out of course without Control's authority is certainly treated as an operational incident; to suggest that opening the doors once the signaller's confirmed that the train's being held in a platform for the foreseeable future is an operational incident is just silly. My Guard and I have taken that decision ourselves on more than one occasion, and I'd comfortably justify it on safety grounds (with potentially increasingly frustrated passengers) if there was ever any comeback, not that there ever has been.

Always assuming that the signaller actually gets back with more than the "wait" button. The scenario that started this tangent had the train held at Birkenhead Central waiting a path for a couple of minutes. That's rather different to a "job stopped" scenario.

 

[trainophile]

Last Thursday I went to West Kirby as it was such a lovely day. The train I caught from Liverpool Central was running several minutes late (turned out apparently to be due to some youth threatening suicide or some such disruption). Eventually it arrived and we boarded, only to all be turfed off at Birkenhead North as it was going ECS to West Kirby. A gent on the platform quite angrily asked the driver and guard why those people who were going all the way to WK couldn't have stayed on, and was told that the instruction had come from Control, and the crew didn't have any say in it. Whether there was some misunderstanding I will never know.

True to their word there was another train about five minutes behind, so it wasn't a major inconvenience, apart from two train loads of people crammed onto one for the final few stops, as it seems everyone fancied the seaside that day. It did seem odd that we all had to get off though, not just those wanting intermediate stops.

 

[Kite159]

Last Thursday I went to West Kirby as it was such a lovely day. The train I caught from Liverpool Central was running several minutes late (turned out apparently to be due to some youth threatening suicide or some such disruption). Eventually it arrived and we boarded, only to all be turfed off at Birkenhead North as it was going ECS to West Kirby. A gent on the platform quite angrily asked the driver and guard why those people who were going all the way to WK couldn't have stayed on, and was told that the instruction had come from Control, and the crew didn't have any say in it. Whether there was some misunderstanding I will never know.

True to their word there was another train about five minutes behind, so it wasn't a major inconvenience, apart from two train loads of people crammed onto one for the final few stops, as it seems everyone fancied the seaside that day. It did seem odd that we all had to get off though, not just those wanting intermediate stops.

Reminds me last month when there was issues on the Southport line. Merseyrail were terminating trains from Southport at Sandhills and running then back northbound ECS whilst a massive crowd built up at the station for a single unit to enter service from Sandhills.

I've been at Sandhills when the Grand National was on and the crowds that day were worse, borderline dangerous.

 

[BenW390Fan]

Strangely, according to RTT that train did make one stop - at Port Sunlight.
In my experience Hooton is normally the last one omitted, because of the connections to/from Ellesmere Port.
But not today, apparently.
Delays started building up from Bebington on the way into Liverpool, reaching 14 down before the stops were pulled on the way out.

Realtime Trains | 2C26 1230 Chester to Chester | 16/03/2025

Real-time train running information for 2C26 1230 departure from Chester to Chester on 16/03/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Worth noting that generally the semi fast services don't stop at anywhere between Rock Ferry and Hooton, I assume it's an RTT error

This was posted on Twitter about the West Kirby services running semi fast

 

[Falcon1200]

A gent on the platform quite angrily asked the driver and guard why those people who were going all the way to WK couldn't have stayed on, and was told that the instruction had come from Control, and the crew didn't have any say in it. Whether there was some misunderstanding I will never know.

It does seem a strange decision, and the level crossing issue quoted by Merseyrail is surely a red herring, but I wonder whether the logic is that if certain passengers were allowed to remain on board, some for intermediate points would misunderstand and be overcarried, or activate the Passcom. Therefore termination was the fastest and most efficient action.

 

[Travelmonkey]

It does seem a strange decision, and the level crossing issue quoted by Merseyrail is surely a red herring, but I wonder whether the logic is that if certain passengers were allowed to remain on board, some for intermediate points would misunderstand and be overcarried, or activate the Passcom. Therefore termination was the fastest and most efficient action.

But what's to stop someone passcoming on the Chester/Elsemire poet semi fasts especially when they are dwelling at a immediate stop,

 

[Bevan Price]

Worth noting that generally the semi fast services don't stop at anywhere between Rock Ferry and Hooton, I assume it's an RTT error

This was posted on Twitter about the West Kirby services running semi fast
View attachment 176981

And that last statement is incorrect. Boxing Day services run semi-fast on all their services, including West Kirby line.