SWR - Holden Report into performance

[swt_passenger]

The cost of train travel is rising. The tickets are going up, SWR has never (AIUI) offered returns at a reasonable rate where you return next day (so you have to buy two (relatively) expensive singles).

The former NSE area had a minimum distance limit on what are now anytime or offpeak returns, which affected their whole area, and not just SWR (and previously SWT). Supposedly this was to prevent people re-using short distance period returns over and over until gripped. Certainly not a recent change, and not a privatisation feature either.

Once you are travelling beyond that distance, it’s maybe 35-40 miles or so, the offpeak return fares you want do become available.

 

[joncombe]

The former NSE area had a minimum distance limit on what are now anytime or offpeak returns, which affected their whole area, and not just SWR (and previously SWT).

One such ticket was called a Network Awaybreak. I think it was valid for a return within 5 days. I think there was a longer period return available but I don't remember what it was called.

 

[Helvellyn]

Yes, I remember that as well but I suppose it depends where you draw your baseline for the fleet size. There was also the extra 17 x 4 car ordered that partially cancelled out the SRA’s hatchet job; if only in train numbers rather than individual train length.

So SWT originally wanted 132 trains, (100 x 4 car; 32 x 5 car) and were allowed only 110 x 4 car. They eventually ended up with 127 x 4 car after some renegotiation - IIRC there was very little publicity before that last batch started arriving.

But the impact was quickly lost with the 2007 franchise where 450s had to be deployed to back cover 444s that in turn were replacing 442s. I think if they hadotten the Desiro fleet they wanted they'd have still needed more.

 

[swt_passenger]

But the impact was quickly lost with the 2007 franchise where 450s had to be deployed to back cover 444s that in turn were replacing 442s. I think if they hadotten the Desiro fleet they wanted they'd have still needed more.

But then you also have to account for the 458s that were originally supposed to have gone off lease, that effectively replaced those 450s that replaced the 442s. Nevertheless it’s all evidence that they are perpetually playing catch-up, always with a lag of quite a few years at every step...

 

[tds42]

One such ticket was called a Network Awaybreak. I think it was valid for a return within 5 days. I think there was a longer period return available but I don't remember what it was called.

I believe that was called the Saver, now 'simplified' to an 'off peak return'. The Network Awaybreak disappeared at the last fares simplification (I think?) and personally was missed

 

[infobleep]

Not sure about this. Any slowing down will cost time, even if just a few seconds, and practices like tricking up to a red aspect, departing slowly on a yellow, slowing down early at the first sight of restrictive aspects ahead all eat into capacity as they're essentially working against the way the signalling system was designed to be used. Whilst this may not always directly affect the train being driven defensively, it can impact other trains in the form of delaying signal clearances, which in turn initiates a domino effect.

There's good safety reasons for defensive driving, however the price paid for this is certainly a reduction in capacity at times. The more intensive the operation the more the impact, hence why LU has gone for continuous ATP with ATO systems over recent years.

I don't know if this is due to defence driving at all or just the signalling but trains towards Hampton Court always slow down between Berrylands and Surbtion. There is no train in Surbtion platform 4 at the time and also nothing on platform 3 either.

 

[infobleep]

I believe that was called the Saver, now 'simplified' to an 'off peak return'. The Network Awaybreak disappeared at the last fares simplification (I think?) and personally was missed

I personally didn't miss them as you can now return over a month rather than 5 days for more places.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know if this is due to defence driving at all or just the signalling but trains towards Hampton Court always slow down between Berrylands and Surbtion. There is no train in Surbtion platform 4 at the time and also nothing on platform 3 either.

That is approach control on signal WK127, for the 20mph turnout from the Down Slow to the Down Hampton Court.

 

[infobleep]

That is approach control on signal WK127, for the 20mph turnout from the Down Slow to the Down Hampton Court.

Fair enough it's for safety reasons. However not every train goes to Hampton Court and they all have to stop at Surbtion or at least I've never seen one not do that.

 

[infobleep]

I didn't wish to start a leaf fall timetable thread and decided I'd put this in here, as it's about performance.

The leaflet timetable is now here and I don't see performance improving for the 8:07 Guildford to Waterloo via Cobham at least, which has been retimed to 8:03, to help maintain its time north of Surbtion. This train departs from platform 1.

There is a regular 8:02 working timetable arrival from Waterloo, again via Cobham, which in the passenger timetable is is down as arriving at 8:06. So for passengers at least they have 4 minutes to play with when there is no leaves falling. This goes into platform 3 so crosses the path of the 8:07. No problem as there is 5 minutes between 8:02 and 8:07.

So with the leaf fall timetable have they refined that 8:02/8:06 arrival? No they haven't. And today the 8:03 left 3 minutes late as it had to wait for that train to cross ahead. The train did arrive in on time for passengers arriving at least.

I can see this being a regular occurrence.

The next bit isn't related to performance but is timetable related. There is an 8:01 arrival from Havant. Some school children for London Road station use it. It stops at all the stations between Haslemere and Guildford.

When there isn't a leaf fall timetable they can get the 8:07 officially. When there is such a timetable they can't make the 8:03. Prior to the May timetable change there was a Southern branded train they could catch, which left about 8:22 I seem to remember. Now those services run earlier, there is nothing for almost an hour.

If travelling from Whitly or Milford you'd have to depart 29 minutes earlier to make the train 8:03.

There were school children for the 8:03. They only made the train since it departed 3 minutes late. In the time it takes for the next train to London Road to depart, I suspect they could walk to London Road station and back to Guildford station again and possibly even to London Road station for a second time, although they might have to run the last bit!

At least the leaf fall timetable is only for 2 months or so of the year. It will be interesting to see how things are next year. I suspect they will be much the same. It will be interesting the year after that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair enough it's for safety reasons. However not every train goes to Hampton Court and they all have to stop at Surbtion or at least I've never seen one not do that.

Approach control is there to slow the train for th turnout regardless of a stopping pattern. A 12 coach train entering a 12 coach platform can be doing 45mph when it enters and still stop with normal braking. (Less common these days due to change sin driving standards)

 

[30909]

Defensive driving must have added time to most journeys as the noticeable slow approach to many station illustrates.
As an of topic aside, I recall a situation from the mid 1980s when Wimbledon Train Care depot staff took a 4 EPB from there into Waterloo after an exam. The stock was to form a stopping Guildford service, the Wimbledon staff stayed on board to hitch a lift down to Guilford on their way home. Approaching Weybridge they had worked up a bit of pace and thought they could demonstrate the effectiveness of the brakes and “hit the ramp” at well over 50mph and dropped in the brake, coming nicely to a stand on the 12 car mark. When they looked back for the right away they remembered that they were just 4 cars and some very unhappy passengers were trudging back to the exit; the guard’s comments are not recorded!

 

[infobleep]

Approach control is there to slow the train for th turnout regardless of a stopping pattern. A 12 coach train entering a 12 coach platform can be doing 45mph when it enters and still stop with normal braking. (Less common these days due to change sin driving standards)

Thanks for explaining that. I appreciate it's not possible but if it were in theory, it would help recover some delay time in the evening.

I do wonder does running the 18:06 as a 8 car 455 cause more delays than if it could be a class 707 or is it mostly the trains in front delaying it? The 17:06 is a 707. We're those reversed in class stock would it improve the punctuality of the 18:06 by much?

I'm not saying they can run the 18:06 as a 707. It may not be the most efficient use of rolling stock. Just wondering how things might be if they could.

 

[infobleep]

Yet more delays again today. This time it's the Effingham Junction train to Waterloo via Epsom train. It left at 7:48 instead of 7:46. As the 7:35 Guildford train now leaves 3 minutes earlier, it has even more chance of being disrupted. It was 3 late leaving Effingham Junction and 5 by Oxshott.

This in turns means even less chance for drivers to deal with the leaves whilst trying to remaining on time at Surbtion. Still I think in last leaf fall the train left at 7:33 so if they at least have an extra minute to play with when the Effingham Junction train doesn't delay the service.

 

[infobleep]

Yet more delays this morning. The 7:32 Guildford to Waterloo left on time but was held up by the delayed 7:46 Effingham Junction to Waterloo.

Leaf fall timetables are useful to drivers, except when a train in front is delayed and that isn't running to a leaf fall timetable.

As it was the leaves weren't too bad but the train wasn't able to make up lost time as the 8:08 from Surbtion was delayed. This starts at West Byfleet.

Two minutes isn't much but it could lead to a train losing its slot and ending up behind another train, further delaying it or simply delaying trains behind. That train probably would have been on time on the slow line north of Surbtion, if the train that switches to the fast line hadn't been late.

If only many years ago the then TOC had built another through line. Was it Southern who could have done that? Then they would have four platforms they could use at all times, rather than three and an occasional fourth.

The 8:34 Guildford to Waterloo is rarely delayed at Surbtion as there is no 9:08 but a 9:11 that is able to stop at platform 2.

 

[bb21]

Yet more delays again today. This time it's the Effingham Junction train to Waterloo via Epsom train. It left at 7:48 instead of 7:46. As the 7:35 Guildford train now leaves 3 minutes earlier, it has even more chance of being disrupted. It was 3 late leaving Effingham Junction and 5 by Oxshott.

This in turns means even less chance for drivers to deal with the leaves whilst trying to remaining on time at Surbtion. Still I think in last leaf fall the train left at 7:33 so if they at least have an extra minute to play with when the Effingham Junction train doesn't delay the service.

Try harder. You can trace that one to the late running Southern train.

Can you please move your complaints about daily services elsewhere please? Create a different thread if you must, as this is detracting from the discussion about the core topic.

 

[infobleep]

Try harder. You can trace that one to the late running Southern train.

Can you please move your complaints about daily services elsewhere please? Create a different thread if you must, as this is detracting from the discussion about the core topic.

Apologies. I was just trying to highlight the performance issue bit, which I'm fascinated about. I will stop as I'll admit its like a record at the moment.

 

[bb21]

Performance is poor atm and it ain't getting better any time soon, so if you want to do that (which you are perfectly entitled to do) you'll have to create a separate thread for it as you'll need a long thread in time.

 

[lewisf]

Not only is performance poor at the moment, SWR seem far to keen to skip stops at the slightest delay. On Wednesday the 0831 departure from Surbiton to Waterloo was running only 4 minutes late but SWR deemed it enough to skip all the intermediate stops. Particularly annoying when the next stopping train isn't until 0857 and you need to be in Wimbledon for 9am.

 

[infobleep]

Not only is performance poor at the moment, SWR seem far to keen to skip stops at the slightest delay. On Wednesday the 0831 departure from Surbiton to Waterloo was running only 4 minutes late but SWR deemed it enough to skip all the intermediate stops. Particularly annoying when the next stopping train isn't until 0857 and you need to be in Wimbledon for 9am.

I'd love to know the reason for that. There has to be a good one as I doubt they would do it for the sake of it.

I was once in an 8:02 Woking to Waterloo that was 4 minutes late and skipped stops before Surbtion. Yet other days it was 4 minutes late and nothing done. Again must have been a reason.

The problem at Surbtion is that when a train does have stops removed, when travelling up, it isn't possible to have other trains stop at intermediate stations instead, at least not in the peak. I don't have a cheap solution though.

Edit: the train was this one. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W13272/2018/10/10/advanced

I don't know which stops it skipped but it did arrive 14 minutes late into Waterloo. Whether that was caused by it using the fast line or whether everything was delayed in every line and that was the least worst option, I don't know.

The next train, the 8:57 left 6 minutes late. It had been on time until it reached Woking junction. So there were delays not just north of Surbtion but elsewhere too.

Cant be easy deciding what to do with the trains right now.

 

[Panupreset]

Defensive driving is the classic safety v performance dilemma. You can't have 100% safety and 100% performance. A TOC does not exist to be safe. It exists to provide a service and make money (even if that is only to cover its cost base). The conundrum is how high do you want your performance to be and how much of your safety are you willing to erode to achieve it?

Catchlines I hear are things like 'a safe railway is a punctual one - driver errors cause us delays and cancellations and money'. But it also works the other way around too. Delays caused by things out of drivers hands (like short forms resulting in longer dwell times, infrastructure failures) cause more defensive driving to be done as more cautionary & stop aspects are encountered.

I feel one of the big & growing problems we face in the driving grade is the drive to improve punctuality (which does need to happen). As this report highlights the performance experts are looking at defensive driving and challenging it. And the reason is things like signal & points failures, trespass incidents, weather related delays are out of a TOC's control, but the way staff carry out their job role isn't. If only drivers braked later, stopped closer to signals, etc etc we might improve performance by a couple of percent and that could be the difference between hitting a target and not hitting a target and having to pay a fine.

But at the same time I have seen a massive deal made over a TPWS overspeed by less than 1mph with the brake applied or a SPAD reported to be less than 1 foot.

 

[Helvellyn]

Defensive driving is the classic safety v performance dilemma. You can't have 100% safety and 100% performance. A TOC does not exist to be safe. It exists to provide a service and make money (even if that is only to cover its cost base). The conundrum is how high do you want your performance to be and how much of your safety are you willing to erode to achieve it?

Catchlines I hear are things like 'a safe railway is a punctual one - driver errors cause us delays and cancellations and money'. But it also works the other way around too. Delays caused by things out of drivers hands (like short forms resulting in longer dwell times, infrastructure failures) cause more defensive driving to be done as more cautionary & stop aspects are encountered.

I feel one of the big & growing problems we face in the driving grade is the drive to improve punctuality (which does need to happen). As this report highlights the performance experts are looking at defensive driving and challenging it. And the reason is things like signal & points failures, trespass incidents, weather related delays are out of a TOC's control, but the way staff carry out their job role isn't. If only drivers braked later, stopped closer to signals, etc etc we might improve performance by a couple of percent and that could be the difference between hitting a target and not hitting a target and having to pay a fine.

But at the same time I have seen a massive deal made over a TPWS overspeed by less than 1mph with the brake applied or a SPAD reported to be less than 1 foot.

The challenge sounds like creating a culture where defensive driving is reviewed on an individual level to see if in certain instances a Driver is being too defensive in their driving and why that is, using training to overcome it. But that needs tryst and a consistent message.

 

[infobleep]

Defensive driving is the classic safety v performance dilemma. You can't have 100% safety and 100% performance. A TOC does not exist to be safe. It exists to provide a service and make money (even if that is only to cover its cost base). The conundrum is how high do you want your performance to be and how much of your safety are you willing to erode to achieve it?

Catchlines I hear are things like 'a safe railway is a punctual one - driver errors cause us delays and cancellations and money'. But it also works the other way around too. Delays caused by things out of drivers hands (like short forms resulting in longer dwell times, infrastructure failures) cause more defensive driving to be done as more cautionary & stop aspects are encountered.

I feel one of the big & growing problems we face in the driving grade is the drive to improve punctuality (which does need to happen). As this report highlights the performance experts are looking at defensive driving and challenging it. And the reason is things like signal & points failures, trespass incidents, weather related delays are out of a TOC's control, but the way staff carry out their job role isn't. If only drivers braked later, stopped closer to signals, etc etc we might improve performance by a couple of percent and that could be the difference between hitting a target and not hitting a target and having to pay a fine.

But at the same time I have seen a massive deal made over a TPWS overspeed by less than 1mph with the brake applied or a SPAD reported to be less than 1 foot.

If one is going to penalised over something slightly cover then I can see why defensive driving happens.

 

[Matt Taylor]

One such ticket was called a Network Awaybreak. I think it was valid for a return within 5 days. I think there was a longer period return available but I don't remember what it was called.

It was called the Network Stayaway!

 

[infobleep]

I wasn't quite certain which thread to put this in but Vince Cabel led an adjument debate in the House of Commons this evening about South Western Railway.

I've not had a chance to watch it yet.but it occurred a short time after they ceased discussing Britexit for the day.

It can be watched or heard on Parliament TV. Go to 21:04 or just before for the start of the debate.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/739a1359-e058-49e3-a597-fac0ba3bd93a

 

[HH]

A true lesson in doublespeak from the rail minister; written by Sir Humphrey, I'd say. For example, all the spiel around the guards and disabled passengers failed to mention the one salient point - that SWR's plans means that some trains can depart without a guard. Theoretically they might not be very many, but based on SWR's inability to deliver a service, I would put money on the real number being much higher.

 

[infobleep]

A true lesson in doublespeak from the rail minister; written by Sir Humphrey, I'd say. For example, all the spiel around the guards and disabled passengers failed to mention the one salient point - that SWR's plans means that some trains can depart without a guard. Theoretically they might not be very many, but based on SWR's inability to deliver a service, I would put money on the real number being much higher.

I thought exacly that as I initially caught the end. However as I'd not watched the rest it wouldn't have been fair of me to comment.