Page 2 of 3
| Early running freight trains question 23/02/2014 at 20:11 #56100 | |
john havenhand
58 posts |
what used to be the case that network rail (scotland) are very strict freight was rarely allowed to run early not sure if this is the case today and Im not sure the reason why either
Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 23/02/2014 at 20:32 #56102 | |
|
Pinza
106 posts |
" said:Once the train has stopped and doesn't want to move until booked time you can give it a gentle nudge by editing the timetable in F2 (see Steamer's post) and amend the "Set current/next location" to the next timing point in the timetable. The train should then start moving.Thanks sloppyjag and Steamer. Just tried that with 4M44 0821 Mossend - Daventry that was needlessly sitting in Beattock UPL. Right-clicked train in F2 menu and followed logical instructions to edit train - making Wamphrey as next location. Train moved off early with a warning that it would be made non-ARS. In fact stayed ARS! Now know what to do should I get in same mess again... Hey ho, barriers now raised at Cove to get offending 7M49 off my area! Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 23/02/2014 at 21:26 #56111 | |
northroad
872 posts |
A good example of do you hold and regulate things or let them go early is demonstrated with the new Motherwell sim. At around 03:20 you have several freight services coming over the hills from England and going towards Mossend. 4S88, 6S59, 4S49, 4S01, 6S48 and 6X77. They all have a 30 minute engineering allowance between Lanark Jct. and Law Jct. but in practice this would only take about 5 minutes to travel. What to do? Do you let them carry on with the eventual early arrival further up towards Mossend and having possible consequences because the only place you can hold them is the DPL at Law Junction as far as I can see. Or, could you hold them earlier at the Beattock, Lockerbie and Summit loops knowing that at that location they would be late but with careful planning you could have them arrive at Mossend on time. Or is there another plan to handle this? Geoff Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 23/02/2014 at 21:49 #56113 | |
|
Late Turn
697 posts |
Generally, my policy is to keep them moving in that case - as long as everything stays in the right order and won't end up standing on the running line waiting time for a really long time (just in case something unplanned appears), there's no point bringing it to a stand in the middle of nowhere for no reason. In the example given, if they then arrive at Mossend (or a previous regulating point where they'll end up out of path if kept running) too early to be dealt with, there's no problem if they're in the right order. Holding trains in loops, making them late at that location, just to avoid early running later in the journey is a big no-no nowadays - any delay of more than a couple of minutes over any given TRUST reporting section (generally between junctions or other regulating locations) will have to be explained! Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 23/02/2014 at 23:14 #56117 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
" said:" said:We check with control and if they give the ok then we run early. Overnight and in other quiet times (not many of those at West Hampstead) we do run them early off our own back, but we have to be pretty damn sure it won't hit another TOC!If you want to be real world then be nervous about running freight trains early. If at ANY point on its journey it is delayed for any reason, you as the signaller that ran it early will get all the delay! TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 23/02/2014 at 23:37 #56118 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:A good example of do you hold and regulate things or let them go early is demonstrated with the new Motherwell sim.Provided no stops are required between Law Junction and Mossend, trains will accept either route at Law Jn without question. It's a few minutes slower via Motherwell (the junction at Motherwell is quite low speed), and I've used it a couple of times to swap the order of trains heading into Mossend. It's also much quicker for the second train than looping at Law Jn - the first blasts through Law Jn at line speed, and provided the second train isn't really close behind, you'll manage to get it the flashing yellows at Law Jn (and even Mossend East Jn). You also gain Braidhurst DGL to store trains. I think Law Jn-Motherwell-Uddingston Jn and Law Jn-Holytown Jn-Uddingston Jn should be valid alternatives for non-stop trains, but I've not yet tested. Last edited: 23/02/2014 at 23:37 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 10:57 #56130 | |
|
kbarber
1719 posts |
" said:Generally, my policy is to keep them moving in that case - as long as everything stays in the right order and won't end up standing on the running line waiting time for a really long time (just in case something unplanned appears), there's no point bringing it to a stand in the middle of nowhere for no reason. In the example given, if they then arrive at Mossend (or a previous regulating point where they'll end up out of path if kept running) too early to be dealt with, there's no problem if they're in the right order. I don't know what the arrangements are today, but Mossend used to be quite a significant marshalling yard.That means that in all likelihood an early running train could be got into the yard more or less at will. When I was at Willesden I used to use the (rather primitive) facilities for monitoring progress and could usually direct work in the yard to ensure immediate acceptance. Freights usually ran up the goods from Wembley. Brent Sidings signalman would be advised as the train passed Wembley and would ask us in the yard which group of sidings we wanted it into; it wasn't difficult to keep the train moving until it was fully arrived in the yard. The first job on nights (after getting rid of the last of the evening peak) was a pair of up trains: one from Bescot and the Trafford Park (the Kellogg's). One night I could see them running neck and neck, the Bescot (due in second) on the slow road overhauling the Kellogg's on the fast. Willesden Powerbox Supervisor asked me which I wanted first; I told him to let the Bescot run and got the staff ready accordingly. Next thing he was back on the phone spitting feathers: Watford had held the Bescot back at Harrow and let the Kellogg's cross in front of it! Luckily it made no difference to us and both duly arrived without even pausing at Sudbury. Even if there had been an issue we could have let it stand on the up goods or even brought it up onto one of the arrival roads to wait acceptance. So I'd say anything going in to Mossend ought by rights to be allowed to run (gives the shunters a head start as well). Of course Mossend today may be a shadow of its former self with hardly room to swing the proverbial let alone handle decent amounts of traffic... Edited to add: that should've been a response to Northroad :blush: Last edited: 24/02/2014 at 10:59 by kbarber Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 11:29 #56131 | |
58050
2652 posts |
Back in the good old BR days & I witnessed this during the time I was on the footplate that the over-riding factor of most traincrew booked to work freight trains was how early could one manage make up in order to have an early finish. Traincrew all over the country had a myriad of fiddles by which they could get something out of the diagram they were allocated to work & one of the main ones was if you could run early you stood a good chance of an early finish even though you were paid for the time your diagram covered. This was slightly more difficult when you were booked relief en route unless the location for the relief was a marshaling yard where the train could be stabled out of the way & not block a running line or else you were held back until you relief put himself onto the box. When I was at Bescot we were responsible for train crew provision at Saltley which involved Landor Street(the busiest freight train relieving point in the country). Early running freights would be sent up the Goods to await there relief. Services on the Down or heading from the Western region bound for the London Midland, eastern region or beyond were recessed at Longbridge until the forward train crew put themselves on. Walsall PSB controlling Bescot would recess trains on the Goods. the track layout in a particular area has alot to do with how & where signalers can put early running freight trains. On the Midland mainline at Bedford early running freights were usually held on the Up Slow at Bedford North Jn or on the Down Slow at Bedford South Jn & the EMU services usually ran fast line around the freight train awaiting relief. However things today are very much different & even from when I finished working on the railways in 2005 things hve changed & the chances of running early are getting less & less, mainly due to the case of accountability if things go wrong & as a result cause delays to other train companies. Back in BR days you could get away with it more easily than today as delays cost alot of money for someone.
Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 11:56 #56132 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
" said:On the Midland mainline at Bedford early running freights were usually held on the Up Slow at Bedford North Jn or on the Down Slow at Bedford South Jn & the EMU services usually ran fast line around the freight train awaiting relief.If the signaller runs a freight off Silkstream junction early, and that freight gets held at Bedford South causing FCC to go around it at Flitwick, the signaller will get a mountain of delays attributed to him. I do feel for the freight drivers at Silkstream who may be waiting an hour or more at times! If the driver does not get relief at Bedford we will run them early but hold them at Sharnbrook on the down slow. As you say it is normally not worth the hassle of running them early and any subsequent delays. At West Hampstead we as signallers can only accumulate up to four 3 minute delays per period (four weeks) until we have to explain ourselves, so we are reluctant to run freights early unless we are really sure the path is there. An example may be running a freight early that then gets delayed due to an ill passenger on an FCC. If the next FCC gets delayed by the freight, the delay will go to the signaller because the freight shouldn't have been there, not down to the ill passenger. It can be frustrating at times for all involved, but this is why I love the job of signaller. TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Last edited: 24/02/2014 at 12:00 by MrBitsy Log in to reply The following user said thank you: UKTrainMan |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 12:18 #56133 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:At West Hampstead we as signallers can only accumulate up to four 3 minute delays per period (four weeks) until we have to explain ourselves...  I can see why there'd be no incentive to run freight early. Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 13:29 #56135 | |
|
Late Turn
697 posts |
" said:At West Hampstead we as signallers can only accumulate up to four 3 minute delays per period (four weeks) until we have to explain ourselves, so we are reluctant to run freights early unless we are really sure the path is there. An example may be running a freight early that then gets delayed due to an ill passenger on an FCC. If the next FCC gets delayed by the freight, the delay will go to the signaller because the freight shouldn't have been there, not down to the ill passenger. That's where the logic defeats me - if you've identified a suitable margin to run an early freight (and you're really sure that it'll work!), then it seems ridiculous that any delay caused by something that subsequently goes wrong would be attributed to you. Would they still do that if you'd made the decision to run the freight early to avoid a conflict with a following late-runner? Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 14:14 #56138 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:At West Hampstead we as signallers can only accumulate up to four 3 minute delays per period (four weeks) until we have to explain ourselves, so we are reluctant to run freights early unless we are really sure the path is there. An example may be running a freight early that then gets delayed due to an ill passenger on an FCC. If the next FCC gets delayed by the freight, the delay will go to the signaller because the freight shouldn't have been there, not down to the ill passenger. " said: That's where the logic defeats me - if you've identified a suitable margin to run an early freight (and you're really sure that it'll work!), then it seems ridiculous that any delay caused by something that subsequently goes wrong would be attributed to you. Would they still do that if you'd made the decision to run the freight early to avoid a conflict with a following late-runner? Using the Silksteam example, I guess the "correct" method (if only to avoid a chat with the LOM) would be to regulate the freight behind the late-running FCC, and the delay should be coded YB. Daft as that may sound, the resulting delay to the freight train should be attributed to the late running FCC and not the signaller. I'm afraid these days someone has to be to blame - the name of the game is to make sure that person isn't you... Last edited: 24/02/2014 at 14:35 by John Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 15:12 #56140 | |
|
Hooverman
306 posts |
We had a case where we had a train from the BML to the MML that was wrong preferenced at a junction on our patch and so was running wrong order on the approach to Bedford. The poor train that was now in front of it had what I going to call a trespassers incident. The delay to that train went down to that incident but all the delay to every other train behind it went down to our wrong preferenced train even though it was the 1st train stuck behind the poor train involved and over 9hrs of "O" coded delay came back our way to the poor signaller involved, because that's the way delay attribution works. The supposed theory behind that was if the train hadn't been wrong preferenced it would of been clear of the incident and in Bedford and all the other following trains were in the correct order and would of gone down to the trespasser incident. Or put it another way, within our ASC we have an early running frieght (stone) train from off the West London Line and between us on the panels we work out we can get it into its terminal before it impacts on the following passenger trains and as per normal 2 of our 4 running lines are closed over night for engineering work. So as this freight train is running down the now two track railway we get a report of a bridge strike In front of it and its a red bridge meaning we can't run any trains until someone on site has examined the bridge. So we protect the bridge and the freight waits at the signal, meanwhile the two passenger trains that it should of followed have now caught it up and are sitting on the signals behind it. The delay to those passenger trains will not go down to the bridge strike but will go to the early running freight in front of them as its in an incorrect path, only the freight trains delay will go down to the bridge strike. Last edited: 24/02/2014 at 15:37 by Hooverman Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 16:07 #56142 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
" said:" said:A move has to be justified and what you describe could fit the bill. If we ran a freight early to get a late runner past it, the signaller probably wouldn't get any subsequent delay. another example. An FCC on the up goes fast line at Radlett to pass an all stations. If the all stations was cancelled, and the fast FCC was kept slow, any delay on the slow would be given to the signaller for having the train on the wrong line.At West Hampstead we as signallers can only accumulate up to four 3 minute delays per period (four weeks) until we have to explain ourselves, so we are reluctant to run freights early unless we are really sure the path is there. An example may be running a freight early that then gets delayed due to an ill passenger on an FCC. If the next FCC gets delayed by the freight, the delay will go to the signaller because the freight shouldn't have been there, not down to the ill passenger. It is what it is. Everyone does their best to keep everything running to time. TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 24/02/2014 at 22:17 #56166 | |
|
northroad
872 posts |
Thanks for all of the responses on this guys they have all made interesting reading and provide a good insight into what indeed happens inside those off limits brick buildings. And I thought a signaller only pulled and polished levers 
Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 25/02/2014 at 00:25 #56171 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Personally, I'm usually a stickler for holding a freight to it's booked timings where possible. Someone somewhere has worked out the times for this or that freight train in between other timetabled trains, and I feel that it is [perhaps only slight(ly)] insulting to them if I basically just ignore those timings that they've potentially painstakingly(?) worked out by letting the freight run early. Also, if 'this or that' freight train is merely passing through my patch (workstation/panel/'box/'sim'./etc.), then letting it run too early off to a neighbouring workstation/panel/'box/'sim'./etc. is something I likely wouldn't think much of at the time but that may potentially significantly muck things up for them, resulting in them(?) receiving the subsequent delay minutes - something that I would feel quite guilty about! There are of-course exceptions to this, but it totally depends on the full situation and facts, etc., which I'd expect to be pretty unique to each situation. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 25/02/2014 at 07:26 #56178 | |
|
Late Turn
697 posts |
I much prefer the challenge of trying to find suitable margins to run trains, early if necessary to get them out of the way, when things are going wrong rather than simply following the timetable on a good day. Each to their own though! There's always the very real possibility that the carefully planned path is completely unworkable anyway  .Incidentally, there's certainly no need to feel guilty about running an early freight onto another box and getting them in a muddle. Any resulting delay will come straight back to the signalman who made the decision to let it run early, or keep it running early if it could've been held to time! Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 25/02/2014 at 10:59 #56182 | |
|
Hugh Jampton
69 posts |
" said:Hoorah for vertical separation! I guess it must be this same system that sees a right-time short-distance stopping service sent out just ahead of a slightly late express from a different TOC, even though the stopper would only take a hit of a few minutes, while the express ends up late enough to miss its path at every large interchange further down the line... Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 25/02/2014 at 12:11 #56184 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
" said:" said:The system is rigid but as long as you can justify your regulating decision you may not get attributed a delay. At West Hampstead we often run FCC, due to go fast at Harpenden junction on the up, to Radlett junction to allow a late running East Midlands past. However, If that FCC would conflict with service out of St.Albans center siding, we would be justified in putting the FCC out ahead of the East Midlands at Harpenden. If the FCC is a semi fast it may get too much of a hit on the southern if we hold it back for the East Midlands to pass.Hoorah for vertical separation! I guess it must be this same system that sees a right-time short-distance stopping service sent out just ahead of a slightly late express from a different TOC, even though the stopper would only take a hit of a few minutes, while the express ends up late enough to miss its path at every large interchange further down the line... TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Hugh Jampton |
| Early running freight trains question 25/02/2014 at 17:57 #56200 | |
|
slatteryc
254 posts |
A question occurs . How was this done in earlier days of pre-BR or pre Grouping etc , surely the same problem arose or were delays just not attributed ? Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 25/02/2014 at 20:36 #56215 | |
|
kbarber
1719 posts |
" said:A question occurs . There wasn't the attribution mechanism we have today. That came in with privatisation, as a means of transferring money from one TOC to another (and regardless of whether the delays being thus 'compensated' actually affected the passengers or not). Hence the situation Hugh Jampton quoted - which I have seen, I might add, with the fast due to pass through any number of important traffic nodes en route with consequent loss of paths and ever-increasing delays. We used to run things for the maximum benefit of the service as a whole, which might mean some passengers ending up just a few minutes later than they do under the current system but a far greater number an awful lot earlier, I suspect (at least until the recent campaign to get delays down all round regardless of cost... if only we'd had that particular luxury!) Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Hugh Jampton, slatteryc |
| Early running freight trains question 26/02/2014 at 00:25 #56228 | |
|
slatteryc
254 posts |
No I understand that, but I can't imagine that being hardnosed about who/what caused a delay is something we've only just come up with in comparatively recent times; Given that in the 19th century there were loads of railway companies there must have been some type of settlements.
Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 26/02/2014 at 02:00 #56230 | |
|
uboat
219 posts |
I think Swindid is the only sim to have phone calls from adjacent boxes regarding early running freights. Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 26/02/2014 at 06:31 #56232 | |
|
Hawk777
386 posts |
I’ve received such calls while playing Exeter. It might be a generic loader feature.
Log in to reply |
| Early running freight trains question 26/02/2014 at 10:20 #56235 | |
|
kbarber
1719 posts |
" said:No I understand that, but I can't imagine that being hardnosed about who/what caused a delay is something we've only just come up with in comparatively recent times; Given that in the 19th century there were loads of railway companies there must have been some type of settlements. Hard-nosed - sure. And there was an apparatus for ensuring delays got allocated, to an extent - Control logs, guards' journals, drivers' tickets and sometimes perhaps even signalbox train registers would be scrutinised (albeit Control would usually get details from signalboxes). Things were done about it too. My uncle told of Dick Hardy (R. H. N. Hardy of 'Steam in the Blood' fame) when he was a shedmaster (in this case at Woodford Halse). If a train lost time due to the loco and the fireman put it down to poor steaming, that crew would find themselves with the same loco on the same working the following day - and the shedmaster with them. The fireman would be told to take his ease and Hardy would fire. If the engine steamed for him, the delay was allocated to the fireman. But if Hardy couldn't make her steam, the loco was stopped for the fitters or boilermen to sort out. Too many delays on your record would lead to a painful audience with the guv'nor. Likewise a signalman that couldn't seem to give clear signals would find the DI asking some pointed questions and spending rather more time with him than he'd wish. But there wasn't this stupid set of rules that lead to slow trains being put out a couple of minutes ahead of a fast or delays allocated to a train out of course that was itself the victim of a delay caused by others. (Or indeed - an instance I heard of - a late-running train that Control decided to terminate short. It would then have to wait some time to pick up its back working. The new terminating point was a very busy station that was, at the time, suffering enormous congestion as a result of other perturbations. This extra train would simply have made the working of the station completely impossible. Eventually the box supervisor decided to send the train on to its timetabled destination anyway, the only way to keep things moving at all, the destination being not many miles further and there being no other terminating point. I believe it led to rather a fierce argument, with the powers that be maintaining that this particular train should have been allowed to mess up the entire evening peak - compensation for other affected TOCs was regarded as the thing that mattered and the impact on passengers who wouldn't be able to get home was completely irrelevant to them.) What existed then was a body of professionals, with none of the overview and information facilities that the modern railway offers, doing their best to run trains wit as little delay as possible, using their initiative and skill to get freights to destination as early as possible without touching passenger trains. it wasn't just for the drivers - shunters would always welcome an extra few minutes with a train at busy times. (Not all drivers were after an early finish either. An early arrival could be turned into an extra job, with overtime to match. Meanwhile, if there was no prospect of such bunce, a bit of late running could often be contrived, particularly in steam days). So signalmen needed to know their traincrews and have an idea how the various jobs fitted together, as well as keeping tabs on how trains were running far beyond the area they could have any personal view of. Adrian Vaughan describes all this extremely well in his 'Signalman's Twilight'. The present system seems to have all the dice loaded against Network Rail, from what MrBitsy says - but it couldn't possibly be a way to impose the maximum possible charges on the publicly-owned provider while retaining the maximum for private shareholders dividends could it? Of course not. Perish the thought, as Sir Humphrey would have said. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: maxand, Banners88 |