Trains skipping stations when they are less than 5 minutes late

[Parham Wood]

If a train is running late and is then told to omit stops to catch up time can it be left to the driver to decide if he has regained time to stop at all scheduled stops once he has regained time or is within say two to three minutes of time? This would benefit passengers waiting for the train but it might upset those who got off early thinking it was not going to stop at their station.

 

[Meglos]

If a train is running late and is then told to omit stops to catch up time can it be left to the driver to decide if he has regained time to stop at all scheduled stops once he has regained time or is within say two to three minutes of time? This would benefit passengers waiting for the train but it might upset those who got off early thinking it was not going to stop at their station.

However the driver won't know what services are running behind him. Control may have made the calculation that a late running semi-fast will not be delayed further if the first train omits stops.

It could easily be a situation that you either hold the slow on a branch (if it's coming from one!) until the semi-fast has gone by thus adding further to the delay on the train, or allowing the slow to get in front by using skip stopping to prevent it from delaying another train further.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

I’d like to thank @E16 Cyclist for giving us an insight into the decision making process in this situation.

I think it highlights the fact that decisions may seem erroneous to those of us without full knowledge of the situation. It also highlights that if we had better comms, passengers might understand those decisions better, but I realise there’s no way that level of information can be communicated during disruption.

It’s a shame that something like this can’t be published afterwards though - it might work as a good way of keeping the travelling public onside and a way of analysing how well a situation was handled?

 

[Horizon22]

I’d like to thank @E16 Cyclist for giving us an insight into the decision making process in this situation.

I think it highlights the fact that decisions may seem erroneous to those of us without full knowledge of the situation. It also highlights that if we had better comms, passengers might understand those decisions better, but I realise there’s no way that level of information can be communicated during disruption.

It’s a shame that something like this can’t be published afterwards though - it might work as a good way of keeping the travelling public onside and a way of analysing how well a situation was handled?

Yes as many of us up the thread have tried to explain, controllers undertake such decisions day-in-day-out and have to contend with all of the various factors (and more) that @E16 Cyclist mentioned. There's a lot of complexity involved which is never easy to articulate or explain (even to industry experts!) and is hard to manage too.

As you say, it is in no way a level of information that can be given - and I'm sure even the explanation given was abridged - and also very very few would want such detail. Such analysis is handled by the performance and control teams of TOCs who do post-incident reviews and can as such review things better. One-off amendments probably wouldn't be reviewed though, but line controllers will always have some autonomy.

I don't think the public would be kept "on side"; nobody likes service disruption and people moan about it regardless of reason (excepting sometimes fatalities); the complaints will often be why this train failed, or why did that signal break, not necessarily the inevitable disruption and decisions made afterwards as ultimately the controller is then trying to manage the situation with the constraints they have.

 

[infobleep]

In which case the train wasn’t diverted to Surbiton; from the passengers’ point of view it was simply terminated at New Malden.

But from a passengers point of view it would have been better had it terminated at Surbtion. There may have been good reasons why it didn't.

Very difficult to turn a train at Surbiton as you have to pass through the station, and then have to stop before Hampton Court Junction, Then the driver has to switch ends, and the train has cross the two other Down lines, and the Up Fast to get back onto the Up Slow.
So the train would have run non-stop from New Malden - which is the last point it could reach as part of it's scheduled service - straight into Hampton Court where the two platforms (terminus) lines allow for reversals. That clears the train of the main lines. So the logical options to detrain the passengers would either have been New Malden or Hampton Court.
Also I don't believe the Down lines at Hampton Court junction are signaled bi-directionally

Could a train at Surbtion just not let people out before it goes to Hampton Court empty? After all there are 4 lines at New Malden but 5 through Surbiton.

 

[Horizon22]

But from a passengers point of view it would have been better had it terminated at Surbtion. There may have been hood reasons why it didn't.


Could a train at Surbtion just not let people out before it goes to Hampton Court empty? After all there are 4 lines at New Malden but 5 through Surbiton.

Still takes a period of time to get the train cleared and locked up at Surbiton, which would then potentially block the line behind it (as stated in the post you quoted).

 

[infobleep]

Still takes a period of time to get the train cleared and locked up at Surbiton, which would then potentially block the line behind it (as stated in the post you quoted).

But would the line also not be blocked at New Malden, whilst it's locked up? Perhaps there was a gap at New Malden in the services running that didn't exist once it would reach Surbtion.

 

[Horizon22]

But would the line also not be blocked at New Malden, whilst it's locked up? Perhaps there was a gap at Neelw Malden in the services running that didn't exist once it would reach Surbtion.

Not got enough expertise in the area to know exactly why, perhaps something to do with the track layout. Besides it would hardly be worth doing it at Surbiton, as you’d make barely any time up (8 min journey to Hampton Court).

The easiest option is to run fast from Wimbledon / Raynes Park as a) larger stations with more of a connecting service, b) no messing around trying to lock up units.

Interestingly we can see what SWR plan do live! - This train is running 17 minutes late with a 12 minute turn around at the terminus https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:Y02558/2024-02-05/detailed#allox_id=0

 

[Bikeman78]

However the driver won't know what services are running behind him. Control may have made the calculation that a late running semi-fast will not be delayed further if the first train omits stops.

It could easily be a situation that you either hold the slow on a branch (if it's coming from one!) until the semi-fast has gone by thus adding further to the delay on the train, or allowing the slow to get in front by using skip stopping to prevent it from delaying another train further.

The root cause of it is the fragile timetable. You shouldn't need to pull stops out of a half hourly service if it's five minutes late. When the Shenfield stoppers ran to Liverpool Street it was very rare for stops to be pulled. That was on a 10 minute frequency, or 7/8 minutes more recently.

 

[norbitonflyer]

But from a passengers point of view it would have been better had it terminated at Surbtion.


Could a train at Surbtion just not let people out before it goes to Hampton Court empty? After all there are 4 lines at New Malden but 5 through Surbiton.

Yes it could. No-one has given any reasons why that was not possible. (RTT showed no train occupying platform 4, whih is a loop off the slow line)

Still takes a period of time to get the train cleared and locked up at Surbiton, which would then potentially block the line behind it (as stated in the post you quoted).

No it wouldn't, because the Hampton Court branch has its own platform (4) at Surbiton, looped off the slow line through platfrom 3

 

[43066]

But from a passengers point of view it would have been better had it terminated at Surbtion. There may have been good reasons why it didn't.

Not if it would have had to do a complicated shunt at Surbiton, blocking the line which would potentially have impacted on far more passengers on other trains, as suggested above.

There will be good reasons underpinning the decision, albeit only the person who made the call will know why that course of action was taken on that particular occasion.

 

[infobleep]

Not got enough expertise in the area to know exactly why, perhaps something to do with the track layout. Besides it would hardly be worth doing it at Surbiton, as you’d make barely any time up (8 min journey to Hampton Court).

The easiest option is to run fast from Wimbledon / Raynes Park as a) larger stations with more of a connecting service, b) no messing around trying to lock up units.

Interestingly we can see what SWR plan do live! - This train is running 17 minutes late with a 12 minute turn around at the terminus https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:Y02558/2024-02-05/detailed#allox_id=0

I thought it was a down train where people were told to leave at New Malden and the train then continued empty via Surbtion.

Most if not all late running trains from Surbtion to London Waterloo skip all stations between that at London Waterloo, if skipping is decided upon. They never stop at places like Wimbledon or Clapham Junction.

They are usually routes onto the fast lines and so their won't be the capacity to stop at any of the stations unplanned in this way. That's ny understanding.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Not got enough expertise in the area to know exactly why, perhaps something to do with the track layout. Besides it would hardly be worth doing it at Surbiton, as you’d make barely any time up (8 min journey to Hampton Court).

The track layout at surbiton makes it easy to tip out, as tghere are three down lines there but only two at New Malden. A long queue of trains had built up in the down slow behind the train being tipped out by the tiem it moved off.
There was no need to make time up - the train was diverted down the main line because of a problem on the Kingston loop. There is a direct bus service from Surbiton to all stations on the Kingston Loop as far as Twickenham, except Norbiton.

Not if it would have had to do a complicated shunt at Surbiton, blocking the line which would potentially have impacted on far more passengers on other trains, as suggested above.

But it did go to Surbiton, and reversed there using the flying junctiuon for the Hampton Court branch.

 

[infobleep]

Not if it would have had to do a complicated shunt at Surbiton, blocking the line which would potentially have impacted on far more passengers on other trains, as suggested above.

There will be good reasons underpinning the decision, albeit only the person who made the call will know why that course of action was taken on that particular occasion.

Why would it need to shunt at Surbtion? That's the bit I don't understand as surely it's ggoing to Hampton Court.

If it isn't going to Hampton Court when where did the train go beyond New Malden if it was travelling via Surbiton?

I am only going on what the poster said of course.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I thought it was a down train where people were told to leave at New Malden and the train then continued empty via Surbtion.

It was indeed

Most if not all late running trains from Surbtion to London Waterloo skip all stations between that at London Waterloo, if skipping is decided upon. They never stop at places like Wimbledon or Clapham Junction.

They are usually routes onto the fast lines and so their won't be the capacity to stop at any of the stations unplanned in this way. That's ny understanding.

Indeed, if they atre to run fast from Surbiton they are usually switched to the fast lines, to avoid being delayed by stoppers. That makes it difficult to call at Wimbledon (where the fast platfroms are normally fenced off to reduce the number of suicides) and Clapham Junction (where stoppers have to be looped into Platform 7 because of the wide gap on the up fast platform 8)

Unfortunateky, trains from the branches that are changed to run fast to Waterloo are rarely switched to the fast lines, (although it is possible both at New Malden and Raynes Park), making the skip-stopping pointless as they get stuck behind stoppers.

 

[43066]

But it did go to Surbiton, and reversed there using the flying junctiuon for the Hampton Court branch.

Ultimately you’re probably just going to have to accept that the decision was taken for reasons that won’t be known to anyone here, but that doesn’t mean the decision was wrong, or that the people taking it are incompetent. Some possibilities have been suggested.

Why would it need to shunt at Surbtion? That's the bit I don't understand as surely it's ggoing to Hampton Court.

If it isn't going to Hampton Court when where did the train go beyond New Malden if it was travelling via Surbiton?

Tipping out plus shunting wokld have taken more time and impacted more trains perhaps? Ultimately all we can do is speculate.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Why would it need to shunt at Surbtion? That's the bit I don't understand as surely it's ggoing to Hampton Court.

If it isn't going to Hampton Court when where did the train go beyond New Malden if it was travelling via Surbiton?

It tipped out at New Malden, ran empty to Surbiton, and then reversed using the flying junction west of Surbiton ("Hampton Court Junction") so it could reach the up slow without crossing the fast lines on the flat. I don't know if it went all the way to Hampton Court to reverse, or did so somewhere on the branch short of there.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It tipped out at New Malden, ran empty to Surbiton, and then reversed using the flying junction west of Surbiton ("Hampton Court Junction") so it could reach the up slow without crossing the fast lines on the flat. I don't know if it went all the way to Hampton Court to reverse, or did so somewhere on the branch short of there.

This is one of the operational inconveniences that come with having an UR UF DF DR layout, rather than the more conventional UF DR UF DF layout that you might see on the GWML/WCML/BML, where a stopping service reversal would not necessarily get in the way of the fast lines.

UR - Up relief. DR - Down relief.
UF - Up fast. DF - Down fast.

 

[norbitonflyer]

This is one of the operational inconveniences that come with having an UR UF DF DR layout, rather than the more conventional UF DR UF DF layout that you might see on the GWML/WCML/BML, where a stopping service reversal would not necessarily get in the way of the fast lines.

The SW Main line switches between the two layouts between Wimbledon and Earlsfield, using the flyover to carry the up slow over the fast lines. The paired by use makes terminal opreations easier (and out of course reversals) but makes it harder to path transfers between fast and slow lines, for example at Surbiton where many trains, having run non-stop from Waterloo, become stoppers to Woking and beyond.

 

[MotCO]

Does the railway operate specific contingency plans for certain circumstances? For example, is there a plan which says, if the loop line to Norbiton is blocked for any reason, trains should continue in service and turn at Hampton Court. This would take remove any uncertainty and produce a consistent response.

In a similar vein, I remember years ago, a Eurostar heading for France broke down at Chelsfield in the evening rush hour. All slow trains to Sevenoaks were terminated at Orpington, and buses were sought to convey passengers to Chelsfield, Knockholt and Dunton Green. There were hundreds of people wandering around, trying to find the buses, such that Crofton Road had to be closed to traffic. If there was a contingency plan for blockage on the line beond Orpington, the obvious answer would be to convey passengers wanting stations from Chelsfield to Dunton Green to be taken via Bat & Ball, and change at Sevenoaks for trains back to Orpington. This would have been much simpler and avoid the chaos which had ensued.

I'm sure that there are other critical points on the network where such contingency plans could be produced - are there any such plans?

 

[Horizon22]

Does the railway operate specific contingency plans for certain circumstances? For example, is there a plan which says, if the loop line to Norbiton is blocked for any reason, trains should continue in service and turn at Hampton Court. This would take remove any uncertainty and produce a consistent response.

In a similar vein, I remember years ago, a Eurostar heading for France broke down at Chelsfield in the evening rush hour. All slow trains to Sevenoaks were terminated at Orpington, and buses were sought to convey passengers to Chelsfield, Knockholt and Dunton Green. There were hundreds of people wandering around, trying to find the buses, such that Crofton Road had to be closed to traffic. If there was a contingency plan for blockage on the line beond Orpington, the obvious answer would be to convey passengers wanting stations from Chelsfield to Dunton Green to be taken via Bat & Ball, and change at Sevenoaks for trains back to Orpington. This would have been much simpler and avoid the chaos which had ensued.

I'm sure that there are other critical points on the network where such contingency plans could be produced - are there any such plans?

Yes there are contingency plans - I would hazard a guess and say somewhere like SWR has about 30-40 for their whole area. They are agreed between NR and all relevant TOCs in that area (for most of SWRs network it’s just them). Normally these are implemented after disruption is expected to last for a prolonged (30+ minutes) period of time and aren’t managed on a simple train-by-train basis. It may not be deemed suitable to always implement a contingency plan though. The decision is usually Network Rail’s to make but is likely done in coordination from the TOC who may/may not be supportive of its implementation.

Depending on the exact issue and how much of the line is blocked will depend on the contingency plan implemented. This would mean cancellations/amendments of a particular service group (e.g every other train to X runs or trains from A-C now terminate and restart at B) or may include diversions and what replacement transport may be required.

They can be quite prescriptive and complex to work out as it often doesn’t always take into account crew issues. For instance if crew relief takes place at a certain point but fewer trains are running to that location in the plan.

 

[pompeyfan]

I’ve seen some of the contingency plans from when I used to have Tyrell, and for example if the line is blocked in the New Forest the plan will say Waterloo - Southampton and Brockenhurst to Weymouth shuttles, however this doesn’t take into effect that Bournemouth is a major PNB point and also a sign off point. A train arriving into Southampton would require a new crew to take it back to Waterloo as the crew would be due PNB or be finishing.

If the line is blocked at Liphook due to a fatality, the plan would usually be send as much as possible via Eastleigh subject to crew knowledge, but also try and implement a shuttle to Haslemere from Waterloo and a shuttle Petersfield to Havant, with no suggestion as to where to get these stock and crew from.

 

[Birkonian]

An everyday occurance on Merseyrail. It makes journey planning stressful. I know that the train is running and has left its station of origin only to watch it speed past.

 

[Horizon22]

An everyday occurance on Merseyrail. It makes journey planning stressful. I know that the train is running and has left its station of origin only to watch it speed past.

It will be a daily occurrence on any metro railway operator - it is one of the tools to manage a disrupted timetable.

 

[Birkonian]

It will be a daily occurrence on any metro railway operator - it is one of the tools to manage a disrupted timetable.

It happens more than once a day on Merseyrail which means that I receive a sub-standard service compared with other Wirral residents. It isn't acceptable. If they can't keep to the timetable then scrap it and run them ad hoc calling at all stations. No doubt people will say that it will cause signalling problems, but it will be the same number of units in service (or broken down) as now. Merseyrail is a complete joke currently.

 

[Craig1122]

It happens more than once a day on Merseyrail which means that I receive a sub-standard service compared with other Wirral residents. It isn't acceptable. If they can't keep to the timetable then scrap it and run them ad hoc calling at all stations. No doubt people will say that it will cause signalling problems, but it will be the same number of units in service (or broken down) as now. Merseyrail is a complete joke currently.

If you want a perfect world in which nothing goes wrong either on the railway itself or in the outside world in a way which effects the railway then you're going to have a very long wait indeed. I can assure you that running "ad hoc" would not make things better.

 

[Birkonian]

If you want a perfect world in which nothing goes wrong either on the railway itself or in the outside world in a way which effects the railway then you're going to have a very long wait indeed. I can assure you that running "ad hoc" would not make things better.

I don't expect a perfect world. I just expect trains to run on time (ish) on more days than they don't. I presume that you don't live on Merseyside.

 

[moonarrow458]

I wonder what the protocol is for if a train is seriously late or cancelled and thus stops with very infrequent services (1tp2h/1tp3h or less) aren't served. Is it then pretty much automatic that a Special Stop Order for an extra stop on the next train is put in place or does that only happen once passengers complain to staff. Im thinking of the likes of Appleford, Islip, Lapworth, Doleham, Pevensey Bay, Ardwick, Salwick, where the next train could be 3-4 hours away if not more.

 

[Bikeman78]

I don't expect a perfect world. I just expect trains to run on time (ish) on more days than they don't. I presume that you don't live on Merseyside.

The Chester problem can only resolved by using a seventh unit or inter work them with New Brighton or West Kirby. They use seven units in autumn so clearly the extra units exists in theory, along with the extra crew. The overall unit mileage ought to be similar because each unit would do fewer miles. So the biggest cost is likely to be the crew and even then only if lots of overtime were required.

It was interesting to compare the fallout from failures when six or seven units were used. With seven, control were quite happy to let a train run 15 late to Chester. With six units they cancelled two trains on the trot and dumped a load of passengers at Hooton for 20 minutes. Which resulted in me missing my hourly service from Chester.

 

[Tramfan]

The Chester problem can only resolved by using a seventh unit or inter work them with New Brighton or West Kirby. They use seven units in autumn so clearly the extra units exists in theory, along with the extra crew. The overall unit mileage ought to be similar because each unit would do fewer miles. So the biggest cost is likely to be the crew and even then only if lots of overtime were required.

It was interesting to compare the fallout from failures when six or seven units were used. With seven, control were quite happy to let a train run 15 late to Chester. With six units they cancelled two trains on the trot and dumped a load of passengers at Hooton for 20 minutes. Which resulted in me missing my hourly service from Chester.

That is the most ideal way of adding extra resilience, though it obviously costs units and crew like you say, and can be restricted by platforming constraints etc. But that way those small delays can be absorbed by the turnaround time.

I don't know how many 6 car sets operate on Merseyrail these days, but presumably the extra set would have been taken from that?

An ad-hoc service would still require an underlying timetable, for crew reliefs etc.