SWR decision making excels again today as the already very late 1135 from Exeter has been held at Chard to let the train the other way go. Had we not have been held we'd have had a clear run via Westbury and likely been on time from Basingstoke. So to ensure the westbound train wasn't delayed 9 minutes we are being held 25mins and so will other pathing issues will now be at least 30min late and cancelled from Salisbury (not that they've told the poor guard anything!). Add to this that we are told the reason for the hour delay is late arrival of the inbound service to Exeter which was a whole 14 minutes late and actually arrived 4 minutes before the scheduled departure time and its a great trip so far, particularly as the previous train was cancelled from Exeter also meaning not train for 4 hours!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
SWR Single Track Awful Decision Making Again
- Thread starter embers25
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
221129
Established Member
Sounds like a signalled decision not SWR....
Agreed but these decisions were made much more logically and sensibly under SWT and so you have to wonder what's changed? Currently they are regularly making odd decisions on this line that weren't made before SWR. Also why do SWR not bother to inform the guard so when he's being complained at he can at least try to help. Journey check was no help as it said we'd be an hour late leaving even though we left 45 late. Basingstoke appear completely incapable of managing a single track line all of a sudden. I really feel for the poor WoE guards, given the constant short forms too (a 3 coach from Waterloo today).
Nothing - it’s still Network Rail’s decision and action. SWR likely had zero input; as SWT would have had zero input beforehand.
It’s pure confirmation bias. Before SWR ran the franchise you weren’t looking for criticism; so didn’t notice the poor regulation. Now they’ve taken over they still have nothing to do with it but because they’re in charge it’s magically their fault. I can cite plenty of occassions of decision making by NR regardless who the operator is.
carriageline
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 1,897
The TOC could have requested that move take place.
Actually I commuted for 2 years from Pinhoe with minimal short forms, 1 poor decision at Honiton and 4 delays over 15 minutes under SWT (2 due to broken down freights between Salisbury and Basingstoke) (I keep logs). The same is certainly not true now. The past two weeks alone I have topped that and it is now a regular occurrence. Fully formed on time services are a luxury. It's not bias its reality and I'm not looking to criticise I'm looking to be able to turn up and board a train and get to where I want to reasonably on time and without standing, which was possible before but no so much now.
I too have experienced awful signalling decisions on all operators by NR but Basingstoke have got markedly worse recently and SWR's complete inability to communicate issues to their passengers and staff is clear. SWT were bad but SWR are a whole different league. Ask their staff if you don't believe me, as the guards I've spoken to on WoE and Pompey Direct are definitely as uncomplementary about SWR as their passengers are (Stand on platform 1/2 at Guidlford during crew changes and listen to the staff bitching if you don't believe me.
An update is apparently we are going thru to Waterloo, now but likely held 30 mins in Salisbury to run in the 1527 path just to ensure we are an hour late! Considering there are people from the 0955 on here, they will now reach Waterloo at 1659, a mere 3 hours late for a 7 hr 4 min journye time from Exeter to Waterloo!
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
The really awful decisions were the ones to single the line in the first place, and the repeated failure to redouble to singled sections.
The so called business cases place very little values on these delays, and the political decision makers don't care enough to commit public monies to provide the resilience passengers really want.
The so called business cases place very little values on these delays, and the political decision makers don't care enough to commit public monies to provide the resilience passengers really want.
A decision that has caused at least two fatal accidents - Appledore,1980 and Cowden, 1994. There may well be others.
Right Away
Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2016
- Messages
- 199
TRUST shows the bulk of the delay to the 1L48 11:35 Exeter St Davids to London Waterloo was caused by a diagramming error in that the driver hadn't been allocated a rest break at Exeter when there should have been one. It would appear that the down service was given priority owing to tight crew break turnaround time at Exeter. Late running up services can have crews 'stepped up' at Salisbury.
As an aside, the biggest cause of delay on the route this morning was the scheduling of late notice engineering works in the East Somerset Junction area until 09:00 when diverted SWR services had already been scheduled along the route. A case of Network Rail Wessex and Western routes not talking to each other?
As an aside, the biggest cause of delay on the route this morning was the scheduling of late notice engineering works in the East Somerset Junction area until 09:00 when diverted SWR services had already been scheduled along the route. A case of Network Rail Wessex and Western routes not talking to each other?
Helvellyn
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,012
Not quite sure how that relates to singling of the West of England line.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with SWR or their predessors SWT.
All descisions concerning train running order on the day will have been taken by the signalling staff. They will not have informed the guard of their decisions because they don't have to and probably will only notify the TOC after they have done their job.
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
That's not quite how it works. Network Rail Controllers will consult with the TOC Controllers, and come to a negotiated decision. Network Rail will not be aware of crew workings without consulting with the TOC.
After Network Rail and the TOCs have come to their decision, Network Rail will tell the signallers which order to send the trains in.
The information should be sent out to staff by the TOC, and the conductor should pick this information up.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
If you say so!
I can assure you that quite often signallers have to make decisions on the fly with no recourse to any Controllers.
I suspect you aren't a signaller!
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,382
The Holden report into SWT/SWR difficulties (which has its own thread) goes some way to explaining that it isn’t quite as simple as that, and effectively NR do make most of the decisions:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/swr-holden-report-into-performance.170361/
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
Yes. But not the signallers.
Regulation is done to PPM (unless the TOC involved requests differently). So the right decision was made, 1 train fails PPM, 1 makes it in PPM. If that 9 late train then becomes 14 at exeter by losing its path, then the same issue occurs later on the up. Annoying as it may be for the people on the train, by hammering one service it stops the delays snowballing.
I agree with the PPM approach and this used to happen all the time pre-SWR and makes sense normally, though not in this case (except for the SWR crewing issue). It is annoying but at least consistent use of the PPM approach gives passengers/crew a level of certainty and you knew that past a certain number of minutes late you were pretty much guaranteed to be held at Honiton for example but not any more, as the past couple of weeks have shown clearly.
Also, had we have been let through we would have almost certainly made up all of our 45 minutes and been on time by Basingstoke, if not sooner due to the padding. Based on what Right Away said, both decisions in this case were crewing based decisions (ie SWR screw ups) and therefore not signallers or NR, despite what others claim...or is TRUST lying? Sounds like SWR took the decision to save a bit more cash and not double crew either train like they normally do and even managed to screw that up as timing tight crew breaks on WoE with so much single track and the Yeovil diversion was never going to work. I see the 1655 also ran out of service back as far as Salisbury due to crewing issues. Every day you think they can't screw up the WoE any more than they have done and they still surprise you! I feel so sorry for the guards who understandably are as frustrated as the passengers as the line which the crews take great pride in is being systematically destroyed by SWR.
The guard was finally told by SWR that we were running through to Waterloo and so walked through the train to tell everyone, only to find on arrival at Salisbury that instead our 6 car 159 was arriving in Platform 2 but the 1527 was another 6 car 159 in Platform 3. The guard was already walking down the platform before the platform staff got to him to tell him we were being terminated, so the platform staff had to board the train to let the passengers know that for no reason at all they were now having to transfer trains, on top of enjoying a further 20 minutes in Salisbury. Clearly me just ranting and awesome customer service and planning by SWR!
The Holden Report noted one factor very pertinent to the WoE:
"Reduction in ability to recover service delays because of loss of ability to control train crew resource, through physical separation of control service managers and resource managers"
The signallers and controllers can see a lot more than you can. You might think the time might be made up but you cannot know that, nor can you see what other conflicting issues might arise further on.
I’m sure if you were on the other train you would be a bit peeved if it was held for one that was so late.
I’m sure if you were on the other train you would be a bit peeved if it was held for one that was so late.
I tracked both trains through their routes including all key junctions and platforms (not much else to go in Chard for 25 mins). Mine to Basingstoke and the other to St David's which is likely more than any signaller would have time to do and certainly more than any SWR controller would have done. Also, we have already established this was an SWR decision not a signalling one , if TRUST is to be believed so signaller weren't the issue here.
PhilipW
Member
If the London bound train was held for 25 mins at Chard, that sounds as if the Exeter bound train had not even left Yeovil Junction yet.
Therefore, for a short period of time, no trains must have running on the single line section.
From a non railwayman's point of view, that does indeed seem like an odd situation.
Therefore, for a short period of time, no trains must have running on the single line section.
From a non railwayman's point of view, that does indeed seem like an odd situation.
TRUST is only as good as the information input by the delay attribution people.
The likely course of events: Your train was initially delayed from Exeter due to a diagramming issue. As it was on its way back towards London the NR Train Running Controller probably asked the SWR WoE line controller (who is very likely the same person as it was under SWT, doing the same job as they did under SWT, just wearing a different coloured tie) - whether the Down Exeter was likely to suffer similar issues at Exeter, to which the SWR WoE Controller replies “yes”. The NR train running controller then instructs Basingstoke WoE signaller to regulate the London at Chard for the Exeter; and you suffer the further delay you did. No matter which way you slice it attempting to contain the delay to one train is the best course of action when the bigger picture is considered. In an ideal world the guard would have been told by his control - but that’s a workload dependent nicety not a cast iron requirement.
As to the single line being unoccupied for a time that may well be the case, if sending the London first would have delayed the Exeter; and the instruction was to further delay the London to keep the Exeter on time.
The likely course of events: Your train was initially delayed from Exeter due to a diagramming issue. As it was on its way back towards London the NR Train Running Controller probably asked the SWR WoE line controller (who is very likely the same person as it was under SWT, doing the same job as they did under SWT, just wearing a different coloured tie) - whether the Down Exeter was likely to suffer similar issues at Exeter, to which the SWR WoE Controller replies “yes”. The NR train running controller then instructs Basingstoke WoE signaller to regulate the London at Chard for the Exeter; and you suffer the further delay you did. No matter which way you slice it attempting to contain the delay to one train is the best course of action when the bigger picture is considered. In an ideal world the guard would have been told by his control - but that’s a workload dependent nicety not a cast iron requirement.
As to the single line being unoccupied for a time that may well be the case, if sending the London first would have delayed the Exeter; and the instruction was to further delay the London to keep the Exeter on time.
Something that might be if relevence is that Basingstoke box has been significantly understaffed recently, add to that back in April(?) of this year NR were recruiting for 4 positions in Basingstoke box, 2 for dorset coast and 2 for WoE, I’d imagine those signallers are now playing trains (even if it’s under instruction) and that might be having an influence.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
What on earth are you talking about? What did you use to track your route?
While this discussion is continuing, I can report that the current state of weekend service to the west country has lost two pax to Gatwick from South Devon /Dorset border. We are flying to AMS Schiphol on Nov 4th and we normally have a choice of starting from Axminster or Dorchester by SWR and SN via CLJ or Barnham or car to Lulsgate or rail with SWR and GWR to BRI and airport bus.
It's going to be car to Lulsgate, taking the hit of £55 for parking. I wouldn't trust rail to get me to any flight at present. I wonder how many pax were on Embers25's train, hoping to catch a flight, one wonders?
I can't see how the change to SWR from SWT could make any difference. At that level of control, all staff would have been tuped, wouldn't they?
It's going to be car to Lulsgate, taking the hit of £55 for parking. I wouldn't trust rail to get me to any flight at present. I wonder how many pax were on Embers25's train, hoping to catch a flight, one wonders?
I can't see how the change to SWR from SWT could make any difference. At that level of control, all staff would have been tuped, wouldn't they?
At least 10 were Gatwick bound and 2 Heathrow bound. I agree the staff are likely to be the same but the instructions they may have been given from the top on how to do their job (ie what to prioritise) could be very different.
This is getting very circular. It’s not SWR’s decision, it’s Network Rail’s. NR likely asked for SWR’s input (any crew implications or similar if we do X) but NR’s goal would be to minimise late running, and ensure as few trains are delayed by an incident as possible. That would necessitate your train being regulated at Chard as happened to make way for the on time Exeter service. I appreciate it’s hard to see when you’re one of the affected passengers but in the big picture it was the right call. If the toss up is running a very late train and delaying an on time train by 20 minutes, or delaying the late train further and keeping the on time train on time, the latter wins every time. That’s not actually a poor decision.
As to keeping you and your guard informed - what’s to say yours was the only late train running at the time? Info controllers are a scarce resource and may have been dealing with more significant disruption elsewhere on the network. The Guard’s route knowledge should have told them what’s going on without controllers having to nanny them, and if they weren’t sure there’s nothing to prevent them picking up the phone and asking their control what the plan is.
There’s always, always a bigger picture than even the most clued-up enthusiast passengers realise - that was one of the first lessons I learnt when I started working in control for my TOC. Parent companies aren’t interested in how we do our job, just that we do our best to contain and minimise disruption.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
is, of course, the correct answer but it will be wasted here.
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
Of course, the signaller could have told the driver, who could have told the guard. The controller cannot talk to everybody, they're probably talking to the train crew managers to ensure the disruption doesn't spread. There's no harm in staff disseminating information.
But it should have been obvious what was going on, the guard as a previous poster said shouldn't need nannying. Indeed, the OP obviously knew what was going on but wanted nannying anyway.
But it should have been obvious what was going on, the guard as a previous poster said shouldn't need nannying. Indeed, the OP obviously knew what was going on but wanted nannying anyway.
- Status