Poor regulation decisions at Rugby?

[Watershed]

I often find myself travelling on non-stop Avanti services that are held outside Rugby due to seemingly poor regulation decisions.

This morning was no exception - 1Y20 (Birmingham-Euston via Northampton) was running 6L into Rugby. 1R21 (Manchester-Euston via Crewe and Trent Valley) was running on time but was brought to a stand outside Rugby to give priority to 9R20 (Manchester-Euston via Birmingham), which was running 4L as it was stuck behind 1Y20. 1R22 (Glasgow-Euston) was similarly checked down, being right behind 1R21.

The end result is that 1R21 and 1R22 are now both also 4L. So a minimum of 8 mins additional delay from that regulation decision alone.

9R20, 1R21 and 1R22 are all non-stop between Rugby and London, flighted 3 minutes apart in the timetable. So if 9R20 is more than 1-2L, I'd have thought it would make more sense to give 1R21 and 1R22 the road (if on time) - to avoid them losing time by being brought to a stand from 125mph. 9R20 can then be given the road once they have passed.

Does the regulation statement for Rugby insist on slavish adherence to the booked timetable order, even at the cost of greater overall delays? Or is this likely just a case of the signaller failing to override ARS?

I don't think I've had a single train to London that has actually arrived 'right time' recently. If not at Rugby, it happens at Milton Keynes or Ledburn Jn with a 'semifast' being put out in front of a non-stop. I presume the landslip between Rugby and Coventry means there's a long-term TSR in place - in which case any existing regulation statements surely ought to be reconsidered.

 

[JN114]

The flighting of trains into Euston in the morning peak is deemed as critical - that’s why all AWC arrivals into Euston have a 1Rxx/9Rxx train description in ascending order.

There probably are get out clauses that once a train is X minutes late the in order rule is suspended; but it is unlikely it is triggered at only 4 minutes.

 

[Watershed]

The flighting of trains into Euston in the morning peak is deemed as critical - that’s why all AWC arrivals into Euston have a 1Rxx/9Rxx train description in ascending order.

There probably are get out clauses that once a train is X minutes late the in order rule is suspended; but it is unlikely it is triggered at only 4 minutes.

That's as may be, but when you have a series of non-stop trains, surely it doesn't make sense to hold two OT (or even early) services for one late train? I appreciate there would be a trade-off to make if they had differing stopping patterns, but that's not the case here.

 

[JN114]

That's as may be, but when you have a series of non-stop trains, surely it doesn't make sense to hold two OT (or even early) services for one late train? I appreciate there would be a trade-off to make if they had differing stopping patterns, but that's not the case here.

But that’s small picture thinking - the gaps you want to slot trains into at Rugby, don’t exist further up the line where LNWR services also need to join the UF.

If late 9R20 was slotted behind 1R22 out of order (and even later), then 1Y16 and 1W18 are sat on the US at Ledburn without a path onto the UF anymore. So do you then delay 1R23 to make a gap, or put even more delay minutes into 1Y16 and 1W18?

If you stay in sequence, yes you are guaranteed to delay the next few trains by similar amounts, but that delay per train will reduce as the practical headway is slightly lower than theoretical.

If you push a train 6-7 minutes out of sequence and run everything else right time; there will be no gap for that train without causing delays elsewhere.

 

[louis97]

If late 9R20 was slotted behind 1R22 out of order (and even later), then 1Y16 and 1W18 are sat on the US at Ledburn without a path onto the UF anymore. So do you then delay 1R23 to make a gap, or put even more delay minutes into 1Y16 and 1W18?

In todays case if 9R20 had been held for both 1R21 and 1R22, it would have ended up in the path 1R22 ended up dropping into anyway. So I don't think it would have made much difference to 1Y16 which crosses at Ledburn and 1W18 which crosses at Hanslope. There is potential that it could have been less delay due to checking down of both 1R21 and 22, compared to just 9R20 (which could have ran to Hillmorton, although not checked if that was clear)

The only benefit would have been 1R21 and 1R22 would have had no delay at Rugby. 1R23 was already late today however had it been on time it would have been delayed slightly by 1W18 today.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Rugby is the bane of my life on Southbound LNWR services. Always held for Avanti services when they are late. I've been held in the platform for a train that hadn't left Coventry yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, had 20 come up in 22’s path, it would have made a mess of the plaforming at Euston. 22 heads to the high side (0912a) as there are three succesive departures on the low side at 0910, 0913 and 0916. If 20 had been in 22‘s path then it would land in the middle of that. Also, 21 would have been early, but had to wait platform as the previous departure is only a few minutes before its booked arrival.


However, the interesting thing for me in this example is that all three trains were 4L at Hilmorton Jn just south of Rugby and three minutes apart.

20 and 21 both made back 2 minutes - essentially the 2 minutes engineering allowance not needed - to arrive 2L.

But 22 didn’t - it actually got later and arrived 5 late, ie 6 minutes behind 21, with nothing else in the way. It had every opportunity to arrive 2L. But didn’t - it effectively lost a further 3 minutes for no obvious reason.

This sort of thing infuriates me.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Also, had 20 come up in 22’s path, it would have made a mess of the plaforming at Euston. 22 heads to the high side (0912a) as there are three succesive departures on the low side at 0910, 0913 and 0916. If 20 had been in 22‘s path then it would land in the middle of that. Also, 21 would have been early, but had to wait platform as the previous departure is only a few minutes before its booked arrival.


However, the interesting thing for me in this example is that all three trains were 4L at Hilmorton Jn just south of Rugby and three minutes apart.

20 and 21 both made back 2 minutes - essentially the 2 minutes engineering allowance not needed - to arrive 2L.

But 22 didn’t - it actually got later and arrived 5 late, ie 6 minutes behind 21, with nothing else in the way. It had every opportunity to arrive 2L. But didn’t - it effectively lost a further 3 minutes for no obvious reason.

This sort of thing infuriates me.

Driver and TM will likely get a "please explain" from the Delay Attribution team, if Avanti are anything like GWR, to find out why indeed it lost another 3minutes

 

[Railperf]

Also, had 20 come up in 22’s path, it would have made a mess of the plaforming at Euston. 22 heads to the high side (0912a) as there are three succesive departures on the low side at 0910, 0913 and 0916. If 20 had been in 22‘s path then it would land in the middle of that. Also, 21 would have been early, but had to wait platform as the previous departure is only a few minutes before its booked arrival.


However, the interesting thing for me in this example is that all three trains were 4L at Hilmorton Jn just south of Rugby and three minutes apart.

20 and 21 both made back 2 minutes - essentially the 2 minutes engineering allowance not needed - to arrive 2L.

But 22 didn’t - it actually got later and arrived 5 late, ie 6 minutes behind 21, with nothing else in the way. It had every opportunity to arrive 2L. But didn’t - it effectively lost a further 3 minutes for no obvious reason.

This sort of thing infuriates me.

Either a poor performing unit possibly tilt defective? Or driver decision to amble along steadily - possibly anticipating congestion ahead?

 

[louis97]

However, the interesting thing for me in this example is that all three trains were 4L at Hilmorton Jn just south of Rugby and three minutes apart.

20 and 21 both made back 2 minutes - essentially the 2 minutes engineering allowance not needed - to arrive 2L.

But 22 didn’t - it actually got later and arrived 5 late, ie 6 minutes behind 21, with nothing else in the way. It had every opportunity to arrive 2L. But didn’t - it effectively lost a further 3 minutes for no obvious reason.

This sort of thing infuriates me.

1R22 had 1Y19 Cross down fast to down slow ahead of it at Ledburn, so that accounts for most of that time loss I suspect.

 

[Railperf]

This is half the problem - all this criss crossing between fast and slow lines. Unless each train arrives perfectly at the junction according to the schedule ,something else will be delayed. Trains should ideally be routed along one or t'other unless you have a flyover / diveunder. Sadly this is a problem HS2 was designed to help eradicate by taking more intercity trains off the classic ECML. But 40 years too late.
The same issue applies at many other places - Leagrave, Wellingborough, Slough, Didcot East etc.

 

[Starmill]

It was probably a bit easier when 1U02/1W02/1R17/1Y18 and their earlier equivalents didn't need to call at platform 4 at Milton Keynes Central. Now they do, you really cannot afford to run any of them out of order. While I appreciate none of these is directly implicated here, I can see why the policy might have a much heavier bias towards booked order with them in the mix. The operators would likely decline any request to skip that stop.

 

[2857]

Either a poor performing unit possibly tilt defective? Or driver decision to amble along steadily - possibly anticipating congestion ahead?

It'll be the defective trackside at Church Lawford causing a 50mph TSR on the Up.

 

[43066]

This sort of thing infuriates me.

It’s better to arrive a few minutes late in this world than a few decades early in the next!

 

[greatkingrat]

It'll be the defective trackside at Church Lawford causing a 50mph TSR on the Up.

That would affect all trains though, not just one.

 

[Boodiggy]

That would affect all trains though, not just one.

Only the ones coming from Coventry..

 

[Bald Rick]

Either a poor performing unit possibly tilt defective? Or driver decision to amble along steadily - possibly anticipating congestion ahead?

As it happens I know that unit very well, and it was fine. Unless of coyrse it suddenly went sick 320 miles into a 400 mile journey.

1R22 had 1Y19 Cross down fast to down slow ahead of it at Ledburn, so that accounts for most of that time loss I suspect.

hmm. That might be it but it was already 5 late at Milton Keynes.

 

[louis97]

hmm. That might be it but it was already 5 late at Milton Keynes

If you look at all 3 trains however, they all took nearly a minute longer than the SRT between Hanslope and Milton Keynes. The first two had a clear run and overall did the section between Hanslope and Ledburn in the booked time. 1R22 however did not and then spent the engineering allowance at Ledburn returning to line speed after being cautioned for the crossing move.

 

[Railperf]

If you look at all 3 trains however, they all took nearly a minute longer than the SRT between Hanslope and Milton Keynes. The first two had a clear run and overall did the section between Hanslope and Ledburn in the booked time. 1R22 however did not and then spent the engineering allowance at Ledburn returning to line speed after being cautioned for the crossing move.

You guys (RTT) would have the signal berth entry exit times, can you illustrate the difference between the first two and 1R22 over the berths in that area?

If

Also, had 20 come up in 22’s path, it would have made a mess of the plaforming at Euston. 22 heads to the high side (0912a) as there are three succesive departures on the low side at 0910, 0913 and 0916. If 20 had been in 22‘s path then it would land in the middle of that. Also, 21 would have been early, but had to wait platform as the previous departure is only a few minutes before its booked arrival.


However, the interesting thing for me in this example is that all three trains were 4L at Hilmorton Jn just south of Rugby and three minutes apart.

20 and 21 both made back 2 minutes - essentially the 2 minutes engineering allowance not needed - to arrive 2L.

But 22 didn’t - it actually got later and arrived 5 late, ie 6 minutes behind 21, with nothing else in the way. It had every opportunity to arrive 2L. But didn’t - it effectively lost a further 3 minutes for no obvious reason.

This sort of thing infuriates me.

if an incoming service were to be swapped into the previous train's path due to it overtaking somewhere, would it not just be routed into the previous train's booked platform (subject to train length / operating issues) to keep the arrival platform sequence in sync, or does that require too much interfering with automatic route setting?
I can understand why for operational reasons Avanti would not likely want trains routed into platforms routinely used by LO and LNWR.

without checking the sectional appendix, are there many Avanti platforms that are restricted to 9-car units or do they all hold 11-car?

 

[boxerdog]

It'll be the defective trackside at Church Lawford causing a 50mph TSR on the Up.

20mph TSR on the Up, a 50mph TSR on the Down.

 

[Railperf]

If you look at all 3 trains however, they all took nearly a minute longer than the SRT between Hanslope and Milton Keynes. The first two had a clear run and overall did the section between Hanslope and Ledburn in the booked time. 1R22 however did not and then spent the engineering allowance at Ledburn returning to line speed after being cautioned for the crossing move.

Thanks to a colleague for supplying signal berth timing data and looking at the average speeds , it confirms 1R22 was checked to quite low speeds approaching Ledburn to allow 1Y19 to cross down fast to down slow.
Average speed between signals 3194 and 3192 was appx 45mph while the two previous services averaged 114-119mph.
Giving 1R22 precedence and Delaying 1Y19 would have resulted in delays to two Northbound Avanti services 3 min and 6 min behind 1Y19. On such a congested railway, there is no easy way to regulate it perfectly.

 

[185]

Leave Rugby alone. No problem there. The real elephants in the room are Crewe box & West Mids signalling centre at Saltley.

Even the contraptions at Stockport operate the West Coast mainline better than them.

 

[Nippy]

if an incoming service were to be swapped into the previous train's path due to it overtaking somewhere, would it not just be routed into the previous train's booked platform (subject to train length / operating issues) to keep the arrival platform sequence in sync, or does that require too much interfering with automatic route setting?
I can understand why for operational reasons Avanti would not likely want trains routed into platforms routinely used by LO and LNWR.

without checking the sectional appendix, are there many Avanti platforms that are restricted to 9-car units or do they all hold 11-car?

Platforms 1-7, 12-16 all take 11 car 390s, indeed some take an 11 car and 5 car voyager. Platforms 8 & 11 can take a 9 car 390 although we don’t generally do that. During 805/7 testing I had a 7 car in Pfm 11 and 5 car in Pfm 10 Just because I could

There is no ARS at all from Apsley to Euston.

The problem with swapping arrival platforms is it can mess up the departure. As it is we’re routinely swapping platforms to accommodate Avanti issues.

 

[FManc]

Leave Rugby alone. No problem there. The real elephants in the room are Crewe box & West Mids signalling centre at Saltley.

Even the contraptions at Stockport operate the West Coast mainline better than them.

Blasphemy! I couldn't dare say on a public forum what I think of boxes at Stockport!!!

 

[Boodiggy]

Platforms 1-7, 12-16 all take 11 car 390s, indeed some take an 11 car and 5 car voyager. Platforms 8 & 11 can take a 9 car 390 although we don’t generally do that. During 805/7 testing I had a 7 car in Pfm 11 and 5 car in Pfm 10 Just because I could

There is no ARS at all from Apsley to Euston.

The problem with swapping arrival platforms is it can mess up the departure. As it is we’re routinely swapping platforms to accommodate Avanti issues.

Take it you mean set swaps when you say issues

 

[Nippy]

Take it you mean set swaps when you say issues

Well sort of.

 

[Boodiggy]

Well sort of.

I know there are others….
Voyagers stabled all day too.

 

[Railperf]

Forget poor regulation at Rugby..just wondering how trains at Ledburn are regulated. Seeing that 1Y38 and 1Y39 Birmingham services were due to cross slow to fast line and vice versa today. 1Y38 is bright to a stand, and 1Y39 was either slowed or brought to a stand while a late southbound Avanti service 1A35 (5 late) goes through with another late runner - 1M10 close behind. But 1Y39 gets sent across in front of 1M10 (was 4 min late) and yet 1Y38 gets held. In the meantime time 1M10 - slowed down for 1Y39 northbound is now delayed further causing it to become 7 min late while 1y38 waits to get across behind 1M10 causing it to become 6 min late. Does anyone understand why both LNWR services did not cross simultaneously? To make matters worse for 1Y38, checked down at Harrow for sig 138 or 140 to clear despite nothing ahead or conflicting movements.

EDIT. Looks like 10 got diverted onto the up slow at Wembley because 1Y38 ends up alongside it and into Euston ahead. ..

 

[Bald Rick]

Forget poor regulation at Rugby..just wondering how trains at Ledburn are regulated. Seeing that 1Y38 and 1Y39 Birmingham services were due to cross slow to fast line and vice versa today. 1Y38 is bright to a stand, and 1Y39 was either slowed or brought to a stand while a late southbound Avanti service 1A35 (5 late) goes through with another late runner - 1M10 close behind. But 1Y39 gets sent across in front of 1M10 (was 4 min late) and yet 1Y38 gets held. In the meantime time 1M10 - slowed down for 1Y39 northbound is now delayed further causing it to become 7 min late while 1y38 waits to get across behind 1M10 causing it to become 6 min late. Does anyone understand why both LNWR services did not cross simultaneously? To make matters worse for 1Y38, checked down at Harrow for sig 138 or 140 to clear despite nothing ahead or conflicting movements.

EDIT. Looks like 10 got diverted onto the up slow at Wembley because 1Y38 ends up alongside it and into Euston ahead. ..

Thats ARS.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Forget poor regulation at Rugby..just wondering how trains at Ledburn are regulated. Seeing that 1Y38 and 1Y39 Birmingham services were due to cross slow to fast line and vice versa today. 1Y38 is bright to a stand, and 1Y39 was either slowed or brought to a stand while a late southbound Avanti service 1A35 (5 late) goes through with another late runner - 1M10 close behind. But 1Y39 gets sent across in front of 1M10 (was 4 min late) and yet 1Y38 gets held. In the meantime time 1M10 - slowed down for 1Y39 northbound is now delayed further causing it to become 7 min late while 1y38 waits to get across behind 1M10 causing it to become 6 min late. Does anyone understand why both LNWR services did not cross simultaneously? To make matters worse for 1Y38, checked down at Harrow for sig 138 or 140 to clear despite nothing ahead or conflicting movements.

EDIT. Looks like 10 got diverted onto the up slow at Wembley because 1Y38 ends up alongside it and into Euston ahead. ..

Not sure if relevant, but slows were closed this morning to check on a cracked rail at Northchurch. Meant everything stayed on the fasts and delayed everything.