On top of that, most TOCs have 'eco-friendly' driving regimes where sharp braking/acceleration is discouraged, and where coasting is de rigeur. I'm not so sure that even with late running, drivers are encouraged to forego this technique.
Coasting has been commonplace for many years; advisory signs at appropriate places on the network have existed for quite some time - probably amongst the older lineside signage I see on a daily basis - and coasting has been long appreciated as a viable method of maintaining or reducing to an appropriate speed. I suppose the question could be: why would a driver reduce the use of coasting, either with or without lineside advisory signage, unless it tied in with significantly increased use of maximum available linespeed and signal section capabilities, and unless it did not introduce unnecessary inconsistencies in their driving style? Carrying out safety-critical work in an unusual and inconsistent manner, quite likely while the body is reacting to a constantly changing environment and working at extreme ends of the clock, could result in some people being at a higher risk of a safety of the line incident. (It is similar with train dispatch, safety critical communication and so on; trying to speed things up can result in cut corners and safety hazards emerging which would otherwise not have done.)
On a closely-related issue, I have lost count of the times when I have witnessed drivers waiting at signals for significant times after they have cleared, or coming to a halt at a signal well after it has cleared. This, when repeated a few times en route, can add up to a couple of minutes lost very easily.
I'm not sure which stock you notice this on the most, but in addition to what has been posted in the thread above... although I tend to deal with newer evolutions of Turbo stock, if you are noticing it on the Class 165/166 I suppose it
could be a similar to a quirk of the power control and transmission on the 170/171s, where there are awkward moments, usually some way through a journey, where the power/brake controller does not engage power after having stopped at a station or signal, and the controller has to be left for a second or two (or a transmission fault cleared by setting the selector to neutral) before it can be tried again. This is irritating and happens without warning on most occasions. Having discussed this with a number of drivers, I think it is clear that everyone does their best, but a lot of trains have their moments, even down to individual units, and sometimes one just has to shrug one's shoulders and move on.
There is also a different theory entirely, which is that the signaller may be on the phone to the driver whilst the signal is at danger, and clears it to some sort of relevant proceed aspect when they are still talking, having come to a clear enough understanding that the driver is at a stand and that they have reached a point where the driver knows enough about the movement, but may still be finishing off the call in some way. The driver may not be in a position to end the call, reset the DRA, take power and focus on the road ahead, etc., simultaneously; instead they may be finishing off the call and briefly visualising any unusual moves needed. I have come across more than a few occasions where drivers have told me that "they cleared the road as I was talking and then I took power when we had finished the call", which is often a paraphrase of this.
The converse of the latter is when signallers fail to clear routes promptly, as happened again this morning when the GWR Reading to Redhill 0830 arrival was held outside Redhill for several minutes before receiving the shunt aspect to enter platform 1, where the north end was occupied by a Southern unit (this is a regular move during the emergency Southern timetable). The previous movement at platform 1 had been more than ten minutes before (from RTT), so this must be assumed to have been inattention by the signaller. The connection to the Victoria train on the adjacent platform was missed as a result, with the GWR train arriving 5 late and departing 4 late. All knock-on effects from what appears to be slack operating (an all-too-common feature of Redhill).
You only arrived 3mins late per the public timetable, and your connection was extremely tight and not officially timetabled, albeit doable in the right circumstances.
As an extremely regular user of Redhill (in fact I dare say I am there more often than you are!), I can fully and completely understand how awkward the connections between trains can be, with both timetable, layout of the station and information provision. I know that people want to get the first available train, especially with such huge uncertainty over reliability on the GTR network. However, even the slightest thing can break your "connection" in this case. Realistically, this must be appreciated.
What if the signaller was dealing with a line blockage or some other safety of the line incident? What if the signaller hadn't received a call from the station to say that there was enough room on the platform and couldn't contact them? (As happens frequently).
As it happens the 2C19 Horsham to Victoria stopper had arrived on Platform 2 a little early, just as the GWR train in question was waiting outside, so the platform staff could well have have been dealing with something on that train rather than being in the "inner sanctum" where their phone to the signaller is.
The information we receive when there is amended working can be very poor on occasions, what if the signaller wasn't 100% where that unit was going and had to check with the station/control? What if (for whatever reason) the route wouldn't clear? What if the driver questioned the route as he/she isn't used to receiving a calling on aspect and wanted to double check? What if the signal did clear but the driver didn't notice it change up? (sunlight can be a pain in this respect).
Also bear in mind that signallers on very busy workstations such as these can be moving 30+ trains in the peaks and it's very easy to miss one when dealing with something else (especially if there is amended working/an emergency timetable in use).
I know, for example, that there were no delays, blockages, etc., this morning at Redhill, and, in any case, this delay occurs quite frequently (to scheduled, not exceptional, movements) on occasions when everything else is running smoothly. Today's driver was a regular (I won't specify the working), and sunlight was not an issue. On other occasions, however, the shunt forward aspect is displayed for the same working (with previous movements having been to time as well) even before we come to a stand at the signal, so it certainly can be done.
There were plenty of things which weren't quite working as well as expected in the Redhill area this morning, exactly the same time your train was due to arrive. Amongst them were regulating decisions due to the congestion caused by a 20mph ESR on the Up Quarry immediately after Earlswood North Junction, causing trains to receive severely restrictive aspects in the morning peak; and a late-running detachment of coaches leading to a late-running shunt at Redhill itself, which is part of the emergency timetable for which information does seem to get periodically misplaced.
Anyway, you have specified you were on the GWR train scheduled to arrive at Redhill at 0830. Naturally, I am quite sure if the driver and signaller concerned do end up reading your posts they will take them in, er, the best possible way...
