Peterborough Signalling

[takethegame]

Apologies if this in the wrong forum as I'm a novice here.

I'm often at PBO and more often than not, I'm confused by what appears to be poor organisation/pathing by the signallers there. Many times I've seen a lack of flexibility with platforming to accommodate/assist late running trains as well as freight trains cross from the joint line to March lines on the level causing several delays on the ECML, when the Werrington dive under is free (and apparently in use).

Just now, (16/3/24) the on time LNER 1E15 was due to pass through PBO non-stop at 1601 but for an unknown reason, was brought to a halt to allow the late running 9J47 to leave in front and further delay it all the way to Huntingdon. This kind of thing seems to happen a lot at PBO, am I missing something?

 

[66701GBRF]

The Werrington dive under does not help those freights that need to access and egress the rather large facility on the London bound side.

 

[800001]

Apologies if this in the wrong forum as I'm a novice here.

I'm often at PBO and more often than not, I'm confused by what appears to be poor organisation/pathing by the signallers there. Many times I've seen a lack of flexibility with platforming to accommodate/assist late running trains as well as freight trains cross from the joint line to March lines on the level causing several delays on the ECML, when the Werrington dive under is free (and apparently in use).

Just now, (16/3/24) the on time LNER 1E15 was due to pass through PBO non-stop at 1601 but for an unknown reason, was brought to a halt to allow the late running 9J47 to leave in front and further delay it all the way to Huntingdon. This kind of thing seems to happen a lot at PBO, am I missing something?

Quite simply 1E15 should have been allowed to run, and 9j47 which was already late should have been held a couple minutes later.

1E15 terminated 12 minutes late yet was on time at Peterborough.

However, I’m not a signaller, so was it a simple mistake, or is there a bigger picture they are looking at regards the 9J47 baring in mind that goes into the core.

 

[D6130]

Can't remember which one, but it was stated on a recent thread that there have been a lot of problems with the ARS (Automatic Route Setting) at Peterborough since the closure of Peterborough Box and the recontrol of the signalling to York Regional Operations Centre.

 

[High Dyke]

Can't remember which one, but it was stated on a recent thread that there have been a lot of problems with the ARS (Automatic Route Setting) at Peterborough since the closure of Peterborough Box and the recontrol of the signalling to York Regional Operations Centre.

A lack of experienced signallers operating the new system doesn't always help either. Any location will have its own quirks. The more complex the layout and moves required, the harder to task to regulate becomes.

 

[Tomnick]

Regulation at Peterborough is routinely appalling, and has been ever since it was recontrolled to York ROC.

My own 'favourite' was on a Norwich-bound service on the Up, 2 minutes late passing Werrington Junction (having been – sensibly – regulated at Grantham to follow a late-running express to Stoke where we were turned inside). An early-running LNER service was then given preference into our booked platform on the Down side. Had to wait for that and the one behind to occupy, wait time and clear 4 and 5. The only other platform accessible to us (6) was occupied by the stopper to Ipswich. Finally got the road into 4, just in time to see the Ipswich stopper trundling off right time, which we then had to follow to Ely. Normally that then means getting stuck behind another stopper after Ely, and thus well over ½hr late into Norwich (and thus a late start on the way back, getting stuck behind both stoppers again, and an hour late back into Nottingham), but thankfully that'd been retimed for some reason.

All the delay resulting from this poor regulation just gets dobbed to whatever incident caused the late running in the first place, in this case OHLE issues in the North East if I remember correctly, and thus no-one in York ROC cares and they carry on thinking that they're doing a brilliant job.

 

[Magdalia]

The train that caused the delay was 1E14 1200 from Edinburgh which was 18 late start, should have called at Peterborough at 1550 but only departed at 1601. 9J47 was late start to follow that, the poor regulation was not to get 9J47 away in front of 1E14.

1E15 was further delayed because it didn't get to Woolmer Green in time to beat 9S45 1553 Cambridge-Brighton onto the 2 track section.

On the other hand 9J47 is now on time at Redhill.

 

[HarryF]

As a semi-regular user of the Liverpool to Norwich EMR service between Nottingham and East Anglia I have noticed that an EMR can be within a minute of booked time all the way from Liverpool to Peterborough, however it often goes wrong there and ends up held on the Up Slow outside the station for some time.

 

[takethegame]

The train that caused the delay was 1E14 1200 from Edinburgh which was 18 late start, should have called at Peterborough at 1550 but only departed at 1601. 9J47 was late start to follow that, the poor regulation was not to get 9J47 away in front of 1E14.

1E15 was further delayed because it didn't get to Woolmer Green in time to beat 9S45 1553 Cambridge-Brighton onto the 2 track section.

On the other hand 9J47 is now on time at Redhill.

That's a good point, and even though the incoming Horsham was late, they could have still got 9J47 out well before the late running IE14 which would have avoided the knock-on impact to the 1E15.

The Werrington dive under does not help those freights that need to access and egress the rather large facility on the London bound side.

The incident I refer to was a freight train that was pathed directly from the joint line to the March lines but for some unknown reason didn't use the dive-under. Surely every train on that route should use the dive-under (if not stopping at Eastfields?). One could argue the EMR services too, rather than the random allocation of platforms they receive. At least with platform 6/7 they can normally come straight in, whereas 1/2 they're invariably always held outside. When P1 was still P2 (before lengthening), the would come in directly without being held, as use the full platform.

 

[D6130]

A classic example of this kind of nonsensical regulating at Peterborough - to which I have referred in an earlier thread - occurred on 2nd December last year, when my wife and I were travelling back from our last sojourn in Italy.

We had already been delayed and had an extra night's stay in a hotel in Paris courtesy of Eurostar, as a result of an unannounced 'mouvement sociale' by Eurotunnel staff, and ES had rebooked us on the 07 01 departure from Gare du Nord, so we had had very little sleep. Arriving at St Pancras on time, we were in pole position for 1D07 - the class 91 hauled 09 03 Kings Cross-Leeds. We found seats in the quiet coach and settled down for what we hoped would be an uneventful journey.

All went well until Peterborough, where we were unexpectedly routed into platform 5 instead of 4....and sat there for 14 minutes, while 1N81, the 09 06 KGX-York 'stopper' arrived at and departed from platform 4.

We eventually set off again in the vain hope that we would be able to overtake 1N81 during its stops at either Grantham or Retford, but it was not to be. We were brought to a stand on the approaches to both those stations - as well as Newark - while 1N81 arrived, did its business and departed again.

We lost further time having lost our pathway between South Kirkby Jn and Leeds....and the net result was a 27 minute late arrival (just as the train should have been departing back to KGX!).

My big question is: why did the ARS give precedence to a following train which is not due to have precedence? Was it a programming error? The one positive to come out of the whole debacle was that the three enthusiasts standing at the North end of platforms 4 & 5 at Peterborough had the rare opportunity to photograph two class 91s side-by-side at that location.

 

[66701GBRF]

That's a good point, and even though the incoming Horsham was late, they could have still got 9J47 out well before the late running IE14 which would have avoided the knock-on impact to the 1E15.


The incident I refer to was a freight train that was pathed directly from the joint line to the March lines but for some unknown reason didn't use the dive-under. Surely every train on that route should use the dive-under (if not stopping at Eastfields?). One could argue the EMR services too, rather than the random allocation of platforms they receive. At least with platform 6/7 they can normally come straight in, whereas 1/2 they're invariably always held outside. When P1 was still P2 (before lengthening), the would come in directly without being held, as use the full platform.

Perhaps there was a line block or some other reason why it couldnt have used the dive under?