Schedule Padding and Trainset Utilization

I just finished watching that 2012 television series on the British rail system and I had a question about schedule padding and trainset utilization. One major theme of the series was that small delays quickly snowballed into large delays. In face it felt that the system had almost no margin for error built into it, especially in terms of transet availability so as soon as a train got too late some following train had to be canceled outright. This then resulted in overcrowding and all sorts of ad hoc methods to manage train reservations and accomidate stranded passengers.

My question is if the system is so fragile, why isn't more padding built into the schedules and/or why aren't trainsets given more turnaround time at terminals?

Having a central authority manage timetables and schedules is supposed to alleviate the problem of train operators making up unrealistic service. Alternatively why aren't TOC's required to maintain more staff and rolling stock in reserve to improve reliability? If trains are getting canceled left and right then it's not like holding trainsets out of service would reduce capacity since those trains don't run in any event. Less might literally be more.

In an unrelated question, if rail fares in the UK are so high and service so shoddy, why don't more people drive or fly or take a bus?

Here's today's cancellations.

http://raildar.co.uk/default/page/type/logCancelled/data/20150804

At the time of linking out of 15499 trains there are 169 cancellations (1%).

Peter

" said:

Here's today's cancellations.

http://raildar.co.uk/default/page/type/logCancelled/data/20150804

At the time of linking out of 15499 trains there are 169 cancellations (1%).

Peter

Most of those appear to be c2c cancellations due to a “Fatality/Injury”, so my guess is that this is a particularly bad day… :(

Here's today's cancellations.

http://raildar.co.uk/default/page/type/logCancelled/data/20150804

At the time of linking out of 15499 trains there are 169 cancellations (1%).

I just finished watching that 2012 television series on the British rail system and I had a question about schedule padding and trainset utilization. One major theme of the series was that small delays quickly snowballed into large delays. In face it felt that the system had almost no margin for error built into it, especially in terms of transet availability so as soon as a train got too late some following train had to be canceled outright. This then resulted in overcrowding and all sorts of ad hoc methods to manage train reservations and accomidate stranded passengers.

My question is if the system is so fragile, why isn't more padding built into the schedules and/or why aren't trainsets given more turnaround time at terminals? Having a central authority manage timetables and schedules is supposed to alleviate the problem of train operators making up unrealistic service. Alternatively why aren't TOC's required to maintain more staff and rolling stock in reserve to improve reliability? If trains are getting canceled left and right then it's not like holding trainsets out of service would reduce capacity since those trains don't run in any event. Less might literally be more.

In an unrelated question, if rail fares in the UK are so high and service so shoddy, why don't more people drive or fly or take a bus?

(though again there are exceptions, many domestic flights are not particularly cheap), not to mention the cost of the transport links to and from the airport, and you'll likely find it's less cheap and more time-consuming than a simple rail journey.

Firstly there is padding, and secondly, adding extra padding time means trains take up space in non-revenue service. Often times the problem is too many trains and not enough track. If you look on sites like opentraintimes.com (might need to switch to advanced view) you can see the engineering, performance, and pathing allowances.

Many TOCs operate at maximum capacity in peak hours so the only rolling stock not in service would be stock undergoing maintenance or the occasional standby unit.

This stuff about "trains getting cancelled left and right", not sure what kind of figures you're imagining, but it's very low.

Probably because the fares are realistic, the service isn't as shoddy as you like to make out it is, flying is expensive and only quicker for long distances, and the motorways are busy.

You might want to look back home for one of the highest derailment rates in the western world, for rolling stock that would be condemned in the EU, and pathetically poor utilisation of stock.

Dare I mention that New York's Grand Central barely manages to process as many trains as Waterloo yet has three times the number of platforms? :whistle:

Oh, and hot off the press, inefficient rolling stock formations

" said:

Probably because the fares are realistic, the service isn't as shoddy as you like to make out it is, flying is expensive and only quicker for long distances, and the motorways are busy.

A friend is traveling to London in a few weeks. He will be staying with a friend somewhere in the extended London commuting zone. He said it will be cheaper for him to fly to Barcelona than it will be to take a round trip to London on the train.

On the series one man was quoted a 350 pound coach fare from London to Newcastle, which he exclaimed was more expensive than flying.

To be fair, thanks to our DMU shortage, we aren't really ones to talk about poor stock utilisation:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126796638@N06/19264944012

" said:

To be fair, thanks to our DMU shortage, we aren't really ones to talk about poor stock utilisation:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126796638@N06/19264944012

Now that's a real train.

Peter

" said:

Many TOCs operate at maximum capacity in peak hours so the only rolling stock not in service would be stock undergoing maintenance or the occasional standby unit.

Based solely on what I saw on the series it appeared that the franchise agreements should have required more standby equipment and staff to prevent the sorts of cascading delays that were shown.

A more recent (2015) show on the poor state of British railways showed some pilot programme where Network Rail managers had some authority to have trains skip stops to get back on schedule and reduce cascading delays. That's a trick they use on the NYC Subway to prevent bunching.

" said:

Probably because the fares are realistic, the service isn't as shoddy as you like to make out it is, flying is expensive and only quicker for long distances, and the motorways are busy.

A friend is traveling to London in a few weeks. He will be staying with a friend somewhere in the extended London commuting zone. He said it will be cheaper for him to fly to Barcelona than it will be to take a round trip to London on the train. On the series one man was quoted a 350 pound coach fare from London to Newcastle, which he exclaimed was more expensive than flying.

Also you do realize that the EU contains [ ] the UK... :yikes

" said:

" said:

To be fair, thanks to our DMU shortage, we aren't really ones to talk about poor stock utilisation:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126796638@N06/19264944012

Now that's a real train.

Peter

Nah....



this is a real train!

" said:

" said:

Many TOCs operate at maximum capacity in peak hours so the only rolling stock not in service would be stock undergoing maintenance or the occasional standby unit.

Based solely on what I saw on the series it appeared that the franchise agreements should have required more standby equipment and staff to prevent the sorts of cascading delays that were shown.

Based on the figures in my earlier link the actual recorded level of cancellation for the reasons you suggest a solution to is really very small, at some point you have to weigh up the redundant cost against the rare inconvenience.


" said:

A more recent (2015) show on the poor state of British railways showed some pilot programme where Network Rail managers had some authority to have trains skip stops to get back on schedule and reduce cascading delays. That's a trick they use on the NYC Subway to prevent bunching.

That's not a new phenomenon.

Isn't the central authority supposed to make sure there are enough trains available for the track capacity? Airlines in the United States used to play this game with everyone scheduling their departing flights for let's say 6pm when there wasn't anywhere near enough runway capacity so the flights would just be late. At the airports where that was a problem the FAA was able to crack down on the practice.

Based solely on what I saw on the series it appeared that the franchise agreements should have required more standby equipment and staff to prevent the sorts of cascading delays that were shown.

A more recent (2015) show on the poor state of British railways showed some pilot programme where Network Rail managers had some authority to have trains skip stops to get back on schedule and reduce cascading delays. That's a trick they use on the NYC Subway to prevent bunching.

Did anybody here watch the whole series? The impression that an outsider gets from it is that some person somewhere in the UK gets hit by a train and half the evening rush hour in London is canceled. I'm sure the series could be exaggerating the problem, but I'd like someone who has watched it to comment on what was accurate and what was not.

A friend is traveling to London in a few weeks. He will be staying with a friend somewhere in the extended London commuting zone. He said it will be cheaper for him to fly to Barcelona than it will be to take a round trip to London on the train. On the series one man was quoted a 350 pound coach fare from London to Newcastle, which he exclaimed was more expensive than flying.

What good is a train service when it is completely unaffordable?

Also you do realize that the EU contains Eastern Europe, France, Italy and the UK...all nations not renowned for reliable vehicle engineering Considering how often our locomotives and rolling stock is involved in collisions I would say they stand up pretty well. Also, one word...Pacer! :yikes

BTW you know that GCT track 110 does not mean there are literally 110 tracks, right? 100 series tracks are just on the lower level.

" said:

Oh, and hot off the press, inefficient rolling stock formations

It's called redundancy. If one locomotive fails there's an extra locomotive! It's actually funny because Iowa Pacific, which runs a number of tourist trains across the country, got the contract from the State of Indiana to run the Chicago to Indianapolis using its own rolling stock 4 days a week (the other three are covered by Amtrak's Cardinal train 50/51) because in theory they can run the service more "efficiently".

The engines are GP40FH-2 hand-me-downs from New Jersey Transit, which is notorious for under-maintaining its rolling stock and then getting the Federal Government to buy them more when the older stock become unreliable.

Anyway the real problem with the train in the photo is the inappropriate paint scheme (it should be in Monon livery) and that the tall GP40FH-2 cowl-body is blocking the view from dome car. :angry: The GP40FH-2 actually used to be assigned to Atlantic City Line service near my house.

Very common around Cardiff if a service towards Barry is 10 minutes late or more, it'll run fast to Barry, with the one just behind it taking up the slack, as they're every 15 minutes its no greater time penalty to the passengers.

" said:

On the series one man was quoted a 350 pound coach fare from London to Newcastle, which he exclaimed was more expensive than flying.

Guessing by coach you mean standard class, and not an actual coach (ie a long-distance bus), because that would kind of defeat the point of your argument. It's because he bought at the last minute and in the peak time (when all the rich businessmen travel). If he'd booked it even a few days in advance or travelled outside peak hours, he would likely have got a much better deal. I admit this fare isn't particularly amazing, and agree that these peak-time walk-up fares should be lower. But equally, I'd be surprised if you could find a peak-time walk-up fare from London to Newcastle by air for significantly cheaper, even without factoring in journey costs to a London airport and from Morpeth.

I'm not complaining when I can pay $120 to travel 800 miles from Philadelphia to Atlanta. What good is a train service when it is completely unaffordable? Also you do realize that the EU contains Eastern Europe, France, Italy and the UK...all nations not renowned for reliable vehicle engineering Considering how often our locomotives and rolling stock is involved in collisions I would say they stand up pretty well. Also, one word...Pacer! :yikes

" said:

Did anybody here watch the whole series? The impression that an outsider gets from it is that some person somewhere in the UK gets hit by a train and half the evening rush hour in London is canceled. I'm sure the series could be exaggerating the problem, but I'd like someone who has watched it to comment on what was accurate and what was not.

I've not seen it. Some programmes can be informative but it looks like you've watched a cynical one short of facts.