Undesirably long intermediate dwell times

[MrTurbostar170]

For some reason on Sundays the Victoria to Dover trains wait at Faversham for 14 minutes and 12 minutes on the return.

 

[greatkingrat]

For some reason on Sundays the Victoria to Dover trains wait at Faversham for 14 minutes and 12 minutes on the return.

This is to provide a connection to/from the fast Victoria to Ramsgate train.

 

[scotrail170407]

2L60 15:59 Arbroath - Edinburgh sits at Dundee for 26 minutes, I’ve never understood why it does this as it doesn’t let anything overtake it that would otherwise be following it through Fife to Edinburgh

Realtime Trains | 2L60 1559½ Arbroath to Edinburgh | 25/03/2022

Real-time train running information for 2L60 1559½ departure from Arbroath to Edinburgh on 25/03/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Class800]

2L60 15:59 Arbroath - Edinburgh sits at Dundee for 26 minutes, I’ve never understood why it does this as it doesn’t let anything overtake it that would otherwise be following it through Fife to Edinburgh

Realtime Trains | 2L60 1559½ Arbroath to Edinburgh | 25/03/2022

Real-time train running information for 2L60 1559½ departure from Arbroath to Edinburgh on 25/03/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Crew toilet break?
Crew meal break?

 

[greyman42]

The 22:00 Kings Cross to Newcastle often would sometimes sit at York for over 30 minutes which became rather frustrating at midnight [though worth it for the cheapest fare of the day back when I was a student]. I believe it was because it was officially routed via Church Fenton presumably for driver route retention but it only sometimes took that route. This seems to have been improved in recent timetables however

Around the same time, the Aberdeen to Leeds sometimes sits at York for around 25 mins if it has taken the fast line from Northallerton to York. It sometimes takes the slow line to allow engineering to take place.

 

[D1537]

9G48 and 9G49, the 22:30 and 23:30 Euston-Wolverhampton services, have nearly an hour (56 and 58 mins) to do Euston-Milton Keynes (the latter non-stop), which regularly means they end up spending 15-25 minutes there.

Ironically the 23:22 EUS-NPT has an hour for the EUS-MKC journey, which includes six stops.

 

[Statto]

The Avanti services from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Blackpool to London via Birmingham have a timetabled dwell of around 9 minutes at Wolverhampton in the up (southbound) direction. This is in addition to the 5 minute dwell at New Street.

During that dwell, they are overtaken by the following XC Reading/Bournemouth service, meaning that journey planners suggest changing for the XC service if you are heading to New Street, International or Coventry - although there is only a saving of around 5 minutes by doing so.

This is of course the legacy of it being a combination of two formerly separate services, from Scotland to Birmingham and Wolverhampton to Euston.

There's a TfW service either Cambrian Coast, or Holyhead via Chester & Shrewsbury to Birmingham International, that overtakes the Scotland - Euston service at Wolverhampton too ( or used to anyway ], a few minutes after the XC service.

Of course the train in question is the xx45 old Wolverhampton to Euston, so still waits at Wolverhampton until xx45, then xx10 from Birmingham New Street to Euston

 

[Watershed]

Ironically the 23:22 EUS-NPT has an hour for the EUS-MKC journey, which includes six stops.

(I suspect you mean NMP rather than the inexistent NPT!)

Both the 23:22, as well as the 22:18 EUS-NMP, are the reason why 9G48 and 9G49 take so long to get to Milton Keynes. Camden Jn-Hanslope Jn on the WCML is planned as a two track railway between 22:20 and 06:20 on Monday-Thursday nights, so there is no opportunity to overtake stopping services.

It does seem to be rather unsatisfactory for the two track railway to start so early, every night of the week - particularly given that this extends to 16 hours on Saturday night, on top of the inevitable 3+ times a year blockades. Certainly the periods of two-track operation are much longer than on the other four-track mainlines out of London.

 

[30907]

There used to be a Clitheroe-Manchester Victoria service that departed Clitheroe 15 mins earlier than the usual time to then wait at Blackburn for 15 mins.

Presumably to allow people to reach their workplaces in Blackburn by 0900. I was intrigued when it got changed - I assume the demand (or the claimed demand) had vanished, as the unit only sat for longer at Clitheroe.

 

[Efini92]

Presumably to allow people to reach their workplaces in Blackburn by 0900. I was intrigued when it got changed - I assume the demand (or the claimed demand) had vanished, as the unit only sat for longer at Clitheroe.

Possibly. However most of them stayed on to Salford central/Manchester Victoria.

 

[800001]

Some LNER services diverted this weekend and some previous weekends between Doncaster and York via Leeds and Garforth have very long dwell times at York, some over 20 minutes.

To get them back into normal xx35 and xx55 paths north of York

 

[CJSwan]

2L60 15:59 Arbroath - Edinburgh sits at Dundee for 26 minutes, I’ve never understood why it does this as it doesn’t let anything overtake it that would otherwise be following it through Fife to Edinburgh

Realtime Trains | 2L60 1559½ Arbroath to Edinburgh | 25/03/2022

Real-time train running information for 2L60 1559½ departure from Arbroath to Edinburgh on 25/03/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

It’s over taken by 1T34, the 1538 Aberdeen to Glasgow.

2L60 sits on platform 1, departing at 1650. While 1T34 takes the loop and makes it’s stop on platform 1S, departing at 1645.

It is a bit of an oddity as most Arbroath to Edinburgh locals follow the Aberdeen to Edinburgh a few minutes after the latter have called at Arbroath.

 

[800001]

The new Middlesbrough to Kings Cross sits in York from 0806 to 0813, but actually from about 0801.

The announcement was “if you have an open ticket wait on the platform for the next train at 0822. It arrives before this one”.

Add to that 5 minutes at the platform in Thirsk (not a stop) and a meander from Stoke to Peterborough on the slow line makes me wonder if it’s set to fail.

If driving to the station quicker to use Darlington instead andthe 0730. Not only in London earlier but plenty more trains home.

Because this was due to be introduced as part of the new Ecml timetable which is now postponed.
That is best path could obtain with out a timetable rewrite.
Without the waits at Thirsk and York, it clashes with multiple other services.
Hopefully when the timetable rewrite occurs, this will be sped up.

MO-SA 04:51 9M03 Newcastle-Liverpool Lime Street is not due to depart Durham until 05:18, thats a dwell time of 15 minutes if drivers run at line speed.

Sililarly the 04:45 1Y03 Newcastle - Kings Cross also has over 10 minutes dwell time at Northallerton.

The reason for this is engineering allowance in case the services run bi-directional at any point between Newcastle and Northallerton. The timing should mean the services remain on time south of York and maintain their path

1Y03 does not have 10 minutes dwell at Northallerton. It’s a 2 min dwell.
The dwell for this service is York.

 

[Jimini]

(I suspect you mean NMP rather than the inexistent NPT!)

Both the 23:22, as well as the 22:18 EUS-NMP, are the reason why 9G48 and 9G49 take so long to get to Milton Keynes. Camden Jn-Hanslope Jn on the WCML is planned as a two track railway between 22:20 and 06:20 on Monday-Thursday nights, so there is no opportunity to overtake stopping services.

It does seem to be rather unsatisfactory for the two track railway to start so early, every night of the week - particularly given that this extends to 16 hours on Saturday night, on top of the inevitable 3+ times a year blockades. Certainly the periods of two-track operation are much longer than on the other four-track mainlines out of London.

100% agree.

Out of interest (unlike me to moan about the 2230 / 2330 services out of Euston of course ), but if the two track railway kicks in at 2220, would it be possible to move the 2230 up by ten mins so it can run fast / to normal timings? At the moment the last decent timed train is the 2143 that gets to Coventry at 2242, then the 2230 gets in at a somewhat pathetic 0011. Same with the 2330 that arrives at 0114. The previous Avanti service out of Euston is the 2200 to Manchester, so the fast lines can't be occupied in the last 20 mins of four track operations?

Or, as mentioned elsewhere, make them set down only like they do on the ECML so they can run early when possible? The 2230 on Friday as one example made its merry way to MK on the down main, and then sat there for 27 minutes (!) before heading north. Are they also timed to run via Northampton as well, as it sat for a further 13 minutes at Rugby!

 

[Watershed]

100% agree.

Out of interest (unlike me to moan about the 2230 / 2330 services out of Euston of course ), but if the two track railway kicks in at 2220, would it be possible to move the 2230 up by ten mins so it can run fast / to normal timings? At the moment the last decent timed train is the 2143 that gets to Coventry at 2242, then the 2230 gets in at a somewhat pathetic 0011. Same with the 2330 that arrives at 0114. The previous Avanti service out of Euston is the 2200 to Manchester, so the fast lines can't be occupied in the last 20 mins of four track operations?

Or, as mentioned elsewhere, make them set down only like they do on the ECML so they can run early when possible? The 2230 on Friday as one example made its merry way to MK on the down main, and then sat there for 27 minutes (!) before heading north. Are they also timed to run via Northampton as well, as it sat for a further 13 minutes at Rugby!

9G47, the 21:39 off Euston, is the last train to run on the Fast Lines all the way - it passes Hanslope Jn at 22:20, the start of the two track railway. Departing any later would mean having to move from Fast to Slow lines at some point between Camden and Hanslope Jns - not impossible, but you'd be slowing down the journey and possibly be getting stuck behind a stopper again.

The two track railway is so long that you only actually have a four track railway 62% of the week - and even less than that when you deduct major blockades.

It just seems completely out of all proportion with other mainlines, where the two track railway either starts much later (e.g. around midnight on the ECML and GWML) or is only for part of the route on any given day/week (e.g. for the WCML that might mean Slow Lines running between Euston and Watford in one week and between Bletchley and Hanslope the next).

I appreciate we want a safe and reliable railway - but this seems to be a railway whose operation is driven by what's most convenient for the engineers, rather than what actually provides a good level of service.

 

[D1537]

Out of interest (unlike me to moan about the 2230 / 2330 services out of Euston of course ), but if the two track railway kicks in at 2220, would it be possible to move the 2230 up by ten mins so it can run fast / to normal timings? At the moment the last decent timed train is the 2143 that gets to Coventry at 2242, then the 2230 gets in at a somewhat pathetic 0011. Same with the 2330 that arrives at 0114. The previous Avanti service out of Euston is the 2200 to Manchester, so the fast lines can't be occupied in the last 20 mins of four track operations?

Or, as mentioned elsewhere, make them set down only like they do on the ECML so they can run early when possible? The 2230 on Friday as one example made its merry way to MK on the down main, and then sat there for 27 minutes (!) before heading north. Are they also timed to run via Northampton as well, as it sat for a further 13 minutes at Rugby!

The 2230 regularly gets past the stopper and waits time at MKC, though the 2330 seems to do it less often (usually when I'm on it, it seems). I believe they are given the 30-odd minutes to Rugby in case they go via Northampton, though in my experience that rarely happens either.

Oddly, on Sundays the equivalent 2324 EUS-WVH *is* set down only from Rugby onwards, and regularly runs early all the way from there to Wolves, though that doesn't solve the MKC issue.

 

[Jimini]

9G47, the 21:39 off Euston, is the last train to run on the Fast Lines all the way - it passes Hanslope Jn at 22:20, the start of the two track railway.

Ah yes, fair point, thanks for clarifying

 

[The Planner]

(I suspect you mean NMP rather than the inexistent NPT!)

Both the 23:22, as well as the 22:18 EUS-NMP, are the reason why 9G48 and 9G49 take so long to get to Milton Keynes. Camden Jn-Hanslope Jn on the WCML is planned as a two track railway between 22:20 and 06:20 on Monday-Thursday nights, so there is no opportunity to overtake stopping services.

It does seem to be rather unsatisfactory for the two track railway to start so early, every night of the week - particularly given that this extends to 16 hours on Saturday night, on top of the inevitable 3+ times a year blockades. Certainly the periods of two-track operation are much longer than on the other four-track mainlines out of London.

16 hours allows for a full 12 hour track job once you factor in getting on track, getting the isolation and the risk bunce at the end. You could alter it every week but neither STP or the TOCs would want the extra work. Have a base and stick to it.

 

[Watershed]

16 hours allows for a full 12 hour track job once you factor in getting on track, getting the isolation and the risk bunce at the end. You could alter it every week but neither STP or the TOCs would want the extra work. Have a base and stick to it.

If it's such a good idea, why doesn't it work that way on every mainline out of London... The long and short of it is that it's an approach dictated by what's operationally convenient rather than convenient for the passengers. Which is a bit embarrassing, to be honest.

 

[waverley47]

If it's such a good idea, why doesn't it work that way on every mainline out of London... The long and short of it is that it's an approach dictated by what's operationally convenient rather than convenient for the passengers. Which is a bit embarrassing, to be honest.

9G47, the 21:39 off Euston, is the last train to run on the Fast Lines all the way - it passes Hanslope Jn at 22:20, the start of the two track railway. Departing any later would mean having to move from Fast to Slow lines at some point between Camden and Hanslope Jns - not impossible, but you'd be slowing down the journey and possibly be getting stuck behind a stopper again.

The two track railway is so long that you only actually have a four track railway 62% of the week - and even less than that when you deduct major blockades.

It just seems completely out of all proportion with other mainlines, where the two track railway either starts much later (e.g. around midnight on the ECML and GWML) or is only for part of the route on any given day/week (e.g. for the WCML that might mean Slow Lines running between Euston and Watford in one week and between Bletchley and Hanslope the next).

I appreciate we want a safe and reliable railway - but this seems to be a railway whose operation is driven by what's most convenient for the engineers, rather than what actually provides a good level of service.

The WCML was until recently used much more intensively than any other stretch of line in the UK. Its still busier, gets hammered with more, longer, heavier freights, it's twistier with a sawtooth speed profile; all of this increases the maintenance requirement, and all of these increase track forced and therefore damage.

Obviously the ECML, GWML and SWML are all hammered pretty hard these days, but with the former two that's been a recent development. Crossrail and Thameslink, building on several years of increases to peak time services, have increased dramatically the number of trains on the inner sections of those lines, but the WCML has been getting hammered for years.

Older kit needs more tlc, more downtime. The high speed crossings on the WCML (Leadburn ect) are higher spec than anything on the ECML, and get hammered as they are used more.


Secondly, the WCML doesn't need to be a four track railway 24/7. It manages pretty well as a two track railway overnight. Granted, you may not always need access to two tracks, but having it there timetabled 'just in case' is incredibly useful, for doing wiring or renewals or just walking the track. All those bushes needing trimmed in front of signals, and wire

Remember the WCML runs 24/7, whereas on the ECML and GWML there's a definite downtime where nothing much loved overnight. If you look on maps overnight, you'll see the lines are still pretty busy.

Closing two lines obviously doesn't impact passengers very much. Granted, the journey time is slower than that during the day, but I'm not sure I see the problem. Most if not all people on those trains will not be in a hurry to get anywhere, and timetabling an extra half hour in case it needs to trundle via Northampton, if Kilby tunnel is closed, isn't the end of the world. The timetable gives you the arrival time in Birmingham, as do platform interfaces at Euston, so any passenger can see the journey time in front of them.

You have to realise that on any given night, there could be thirty individuals or teams out patrolling different parts of the southern WCML. Given the apprehension for red zone working these days, just blocking one set of lines off and dealing with it is probably the best way. Furthermore, it's not that uncommon to be diverted round the Hertford loop after midnight, as they use that time on the empty ECML to do checks, but you don't notice it in the timetable, as you just arrive south into kings cross early.


Thirdly, the maintenance regime takes time to bed in. The WCML has been more intensively used for longer, the kit is older, and that's the regime that the NR control have decided works. There's a degree of inertia in maintenance regimes.


Finally, and this is more of a gripe, the railway is 100% operated for operational convenience. The railway doesn't run trains for everywhere to everywhere else, despite the fact that passengers would be ecstatic, because that's not operationally convenient. It would benefit passengers to run to timetable, with perfect connections being held, but that's not operationally convenient because the timetables are so full, and knock-on delays would be prevalent. NR closes some of the network every night, because it's operationally convenient.

But here's the thing. They don't close the whole network every night, even though it would be operationally convenient, because it still cares about passengers.

 

[Watershed]

The WCML was until recently used much more intensively than any other stretch of line in the UK.

But it's not anymore, is it? Two years down the line from when timetables were slashed, and there aren't even proposals that engineering access might be cut back or rearranged to better cater to nights out, Sunday morning trips etc. - all the kind of leisure markets that have reached, if not exceeded, pre-pandemic levels.

Its still busier, gets hammered with more, longer, heavier freights

No different to the GEML amongst others. Which, strangely enough, doesn't run on SLW or a two track railway 38% of the time.

Obviously the ECML, GWML and SWML are all hammered pretty hard these days, but with the former two that's been a recent development. Crossrail and Thameslink, building on several years of increases to peak time services, have increased dramatically the number of trains on the inner sections of those lines,

Then surely these should have much longer periods of two track operation? Whereas at the moment they are shut far less than the WCML but seem to manage just fine.

but the WCML has been getting hammered for years.

Older kit needs more tlc, more downtime.

Yet the WCML was comprehensively renewed less than 20 years ago. It still has some of the most modern kit out there. If older kit needs more downtime then surely other lines should need to be shut much longer?

The high speed crossings on the WCML (Leadburn ect) are higher spec than anything on the ECML, and get hammered as they are used more.

Fair enough - but apart from the fact that renewal will be needed sooner (which will in any case mean an all lines block rather than two track running), it doesn't really make that big a difference. An 8 hour possession isn't going to enable you to fix a major defect any more than a 5 hour possession will.

Secondly, the WCML doesn't need to be a four track railway 24/7. It manages pretty well as a two track railway overnight.

Not 24/7, no, but 'overnight' doesn't start at 22:20 on most other mainlines. Other lines typically see two track railways starting nearer midnight and finishing nearer to 5am.

Granted, you may not always need access to two tracks, but having it there timetabled 'just in case' is incredibly useful, for doing wiring or renewals or just walking the track. All those bushes needing trimmed in front of signals, and wire

That's what it comes down to, ultimately. The long closures are predominantly there 'just in case', which is no way to run a railway. On most other lines a pragmatic approach is applied and closures are in smaller sections, meaning the impact on passengers is much lower.

Closing two lines obviously doesn't impact passengers very much. Granted, the journey time is slower than that during the day, but I'm not sure I see the problem. Most if not all people on those trains will not be in a hurry to get anywhere, and timetabling an extra half hour in case it needs to trundle via Northampton, if Kilby tunnel is closed, isn't the end of the world.

I beg to differ. For example, if you live in Rugby then on a Sunday, your normal ~50 minute journey time to London increases to ~90 minutes until after 1pm, and you can't get to London until around 10:30, where normally your first train would get you in at around 7am. I'd call that a significant impact; if the timetable were like that every day of the week the railway would be highly uncompetitive.

The timetable gives you the arrival time in Birmingham, as do platform interfaces at Euston, so any passenger can see the journey time in front of them.

You could say the same acbout journeys like Inverness to Thurso or Edinburgh to Bristol - passengers can see the journey time in front of them, yet rail is highly uncompetitive for these journeys. The fact that a mediocre journey time is clearly advertised doesn't make it any less mediocre!

You have to realise that on any given night, there could be thirty individuals or teams out patrolling different parts of the southern WCML. Given the apprehension for red zone working these days, just blocking one set of lines off and dealing with it is probably the best way.

Yes, in sections, that's fair enough. What's completely unreasonable is to declare 55 miles of track from Camden to Hanslope (and beyond) closed every night of the week.

Furthermore, it's not that uncommon to be diverted round the Hertford loop after midnight, as they use that time on the empty ECML to do checks, but you don't notice it in the timetable, as you just arrive south into kings cross early.

But they don't force trains to use the Slow Lines all the way from Stoke Tunnel to Kings Cross. Even the 23:33 Kings Cross to Leeds uses the Fast Lines as far as Peterborough.

Thirdly, the maintenance regime takes time to bed in. The WCML has been more intensively used for longer, the kit is older

They've only had 15 years for it to bed in since it was comprehensively renewed...!

that's the regime that the NR control have decided works. There's a degree of inertia in maintenance regimes.

And here we come to the real reason. Like so many things on the railway, late evening and Sunday morning travel on the WCML is just a pain "because that's the way it's always been done". It's an attitude which has to go if the railway is to truly reform and move into the 21st Century.

Finally, and this is more of a gripe, the railway is 100% operated for operational convenience. The railway doesn't run trains for everywhere to everywhere else, despite the fact that passengers would be ecstatic, because that's not operationally convenient. It would benefit passengers to run to timetable, with perfect connections being held, but that's not operationally convenient because the timetables are so full, and knock-on delays would be prevalent. NR closes some of the network every night, because it's operationally convenient.

But here's the thing. They don't close the whole network every night, even though it would be operationally convenient, because it still cares about passengers.

That generalisation can't be made across the board. Yes, there are absolutely places where the railway runs in the most operationally convenient way - for example the Blaenau Ffestiniog, Heart of Wales, Far North, Kyle and Fort William/Mallaig lines all run to much lower frequencies than is theoretically possible, simply because that maximises resource efficiency. But it doesn't happen everywhere and there is no good reason why something like the WCML needs to be hamstrung in this manner.

 

[scotrail170407]

It’s over taken by 1T34, the 1538 Aberdeen to Glasgow.

2L60 sits on platform 1, departing at 1650. While 1T34 takes the loop and makes it’s stop on platform 1S, departing at 1645.

It is a bit of an oddity as most Arbroath to Edinburgh locals follow the Aberdeen to Edinburgh a few minutes after the latter have called at Arbroath.

I know 1T34 overtakes 2L60, my profile picture is a shot of exactly that!

I was more sort of meaning it’s strange how 2L60 sits at Dundee for so long when nothing that would otherwise be following it through Fife overtakes it

 

[The Planner]

But it's not anymore, is it? Two years down the line from when timetables were slashed, and there aren't even proposals that engineering access might be cut back or rearranged to better cater to nights out, Sunday morning trips etc. - all the kind of leisure markets that have reached, if not exceeded, pre-pandemic levels.

Plenty of talk going on in the background about it, Avanti want later and earlier trains. Dec 22 has been signed off which has more paths in it than currently, subject to rights being signed off.

Yet the WCML was comprehensively renewed less than 20 years ago. It still has some of the most modern kit out there. If older kit needs more downtime then surely other lines should need to be shut much longer?

And that chicken is coming home to roost. Bourne End is being challenged in its entirety due to being a liability, and the others are becoming life expired. How many high speed 4 track junctions does the ECML and GEML have in comparison?

Fair enough - but apart from the fact that renewal will be needed sooner (which will in any case mean an all lines block rather than two track running), it doesn't really make that big a difference. An 8 hour possession isn't going to enable you to fix a major defect any more than a 5 hour possession will.

Makes a massive difference in terms of what you can do, especially in terms of efficiency as most work is based on a paid 8 hour shift.

Not 24/7, no, but 'overnight' doesn't start at 22:20 on most other mainlines. Other lines typically see two track railways starting nearer midnight and finishing nearer to 5am.

LNE have got a load of extra section 5 times in for 2023. They got knocked back on extending section 4.

That's what it comes down to, ultimately. The long closures are predominantly there 'just in case', which is no way to run a railway. On most other lines a pragmatic approach is applied and closures are in smaller sections, meaning the impact on passengers is much lower.

As I said previously, go and ask the NW&C STP team if they want to be dealing with a different two track plan every weekend. Splitting the sections up south of Hanslope still won't allow a huge uplift in capacity.

Yes, in sections, that's fair enough. What's completely unreasonable is to declare 55 miles of track from Camden to Hanslope (and beyond) closed every night of the week.

It isn't going to go away, especially with what @waverley47 has said about track worker safety. Access you had between trains in the past now has to be formalised.

They've only had 15 years for it to bed in since it was comprehensively renewed...!

See above, until we get to a point where we can doing decent lengths of track or other renewal in short shifts, then the issue will not go away.

 

[D1537]

I appreciate we want a safe and reliable railway - but this seems to be a railway whose operation is driven by what's most convenient for the engineers, rather than what actually provides a good level of service.

Of course this is true, but the other issue is that we have stoppers running just 8 minutes ahead of expresses, with the result that on many nights the express ends up trundling along the WCML just behind it for 50 miles. Why on earth can't the stopper leave 15-20 minutes earlier? The last Northampton service is 0035, so it's not like people are going to fail to get home. It's nonsensical timetabling.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

1Y03 does not have 10 minutes dwell at Northallerton. It’s a 2 min dwell.
The dwell for this service is York.

Must have changed then, used to be Northallerton.

Imyerestingly 9E21 21:08 Liverpool to Newcastle has a dwell time for engineering alllowance at Chester LE Street of all places. (0009 off Durham, 0022 off Chester LE street) There’s a LNER service 1N34 (Durham 0014) that often catches up to and waits for 9E21 to leave Chester LE street If both services are on time. 1N34 follows 9E21 from York and both trains are routed along the slow line north of York. 1N34 can often be seen following from the rear cab of 9E21 and is usually ahead of time enough to get checked down for 9E21s stop at Thirsk As well as Chester LE street.

 

[FenMan]

The 12 minute dwell times at Guildford for the Reading-Redhill stoppers on the North Downs Line is a pain. They were introduced to accommodate a second Reading - Gatwick fast. That plan has been abandoned, so they're waiting to be overtaken by a service that will never exist.

The NDL timetable has become an untidy mess and needs to revert to the 2019 schedule, but the planners at GWR appear to have adopted a yeah whatever view now they are effectively controlled by civil servants at DafT, who I very much doubt could pick out the North Downs Line on a map ...

 

[Watershed]

The 12 minute dwell times at Guildford for the Reading-Redhill stoppers on the North Downs Line is a pain. They were introduced to accommodate a second Reading - Gatwick fast. That plan has been abandoned, so they're waiting to be overtaken by a service that will never exist.

The NDL timetable has become an untidy mess and needs to revert to the 2019 schedule, but the planners at GWR appear to have adopted a yeah whatever view now they are effectively controlled by civil servants at DafT, who I very much doubt could pick out the North Downs Line on a map ...

It's really quite a sad situation. However, a lot of plans remain in limbo at the moment (are the 769s really going to enter service, what's going to happen to the 165/6s?), quite apart from a DfT that is hellbent on 'penny wise pound foolish' cost-cutting.

In those circumstances it would be a rather courageous person at GWR who pokes their head above the parapet and says "look, we're not realistically going to run the planned timetable anytime soon, let's go back to the old timetable". For one thing they risk losing the paths for the new timetable if they do that, so if the political winds change and suddenly 3tph is back on the table, you can be sure that person would be the first one to be blamed (yet they would never get the credit for 'improving' the timetable back to its pre-3tph form).

The current industry setup, particularly in terms of access rights, incentivises operators to be risk averse and keep their options open, even if that means delivering an objectively worse service. It's one of many shortcomings in the system.

 

[FenMan]

It's really quite a sad situation. However, a lot of plans remain in limbo at the moment (are the 769s really going to enter service, what's going to happen to the 165/6s?), quite apart from a DfT that is hellbent on 'penny wise pound foolish' cost-cutting.

In those circumstances it would be a rather courageous person at GWR who pokes their head above the parapet and says "look, we're not realistically going to run the planned timetable anytime soon, let's go back to the old timetable". For one thing they risk losing the paths for the new timetable if they do that, so if the political winds change and suddenly 3tph is back on the table, you can be sure that person would be the first one to be blamed (yet they would never get the credit for 'improving' the timetable back to its pre-3tph form).

The current industry setup, particularly in terms of access rights, incentivises operators to be risk averse and keep their options open, even if that means delivering an objectively worse service. It's one of many shortcomings in the system.

Of course SWR also made big promises to improve frequencies between Waterloo - Wokingham - Reading and the frequency of Waterloo fasts through Guildford, both impacting paths on the North Downs Line. But both plans are dead as dead can be. I'd organise a GWR/SWR pile-on to gently "persuade" DafT which way is up.

In my career (I'm recently retired) I never shirked from putting forward proposals to do things better, but I always took care to seed the ground first. Never did me any harm, far from it.