The order of trains during multiple failures

The salient point has already been answered, but I will correct you on one point Phil – Neither NR or TOC control have any interest whatsoever of the fiscal element of delay attribution. It would not remotely factor in decision making from either party.

NR Control will be managing the response and setting the over-arching strategy for mitigating the fallout of the disruption - usually through implementation of pre-prescribed train plans agreed with all operators on how to thin out the service. TOC control will be implementing that strategy, and finessing the plan to cater for real-world operations - EG plan 2B says cancel 1A01 but 1A01 carries passing crew for 1B01 so we'll cancel 1A02 instead - that kind of stuff.

Currently working in a control, I will assure you PPM went the way of the dinosaurs as a performance metric quite a while ago now (2+ years on our route) - right time enroute is now what we aim for.

What constitutes “good controlling” might correlate with less money changing hands on the delay attribution side - but it isn’t, as inferred, ever a consideration; it breeds poor decision making because different service groups pay different amounts for delay minutes - therefore it encouraged those groups to be prioritised and others to disproportionately suffer more often. The “new” regime is much better for the customer, and overall performance.

Different routes different philosophies; sorry to have worded it so firmly - with a re-read it wasn’t how I intended it to come across.

To go back to Bugsy’s initial point -

For your specific scenario, it’s just a certain platform at NNG that isn’t available. As a signalled route is available that gets around the problem, the signaller would just be expected to get on with it; and manage the delays accordingly - try and get trains back in correct order further up the line where practical, but you shouldn’t be needlessly further delaying trains to do so. Control would only intervene either on request that the service level through the failure was unmanageable, or they saw the delays creeping up past reasonable expectations.

Signallers are generally quite intelligent creatures when left to their own devices, and don’t respond well to micro-management.

Being the same island, P3 vice P2 is a complete non-issue.

The salient point has already been answered, but I will correct you on one point Phil – Neither NR or TOC control have any interest whatsoever of the fiscal element of delay attribution. It would not remotely factor in decision making from either party.

NR Control will be managing the response and setting the over-arching strategy for mitigating the fallout of the disruption - usually through implementation of pre-prescribed train plans agreed with all operators on how to thin out the service. TOC control will be implementing that strategy, and finessing the plan to cater for real-world operations - EG plan 2B says cancel 1A01 but 1A01 carries passing crew for 1B01 so we'll cancel 1A02 instead - that kind of stuff.

Currently working in a control, I will assure you PPM went the way of the dinosaurs as a performance metric quite a while ago now (2+ years on our route) - right time enroute is now what we aim for.

What constitutes “good controlling” might correlate with less money changing hands on the delay attribution side - but it isn’t, as inferred, ever a consideration; it breeds poor decision making because different service groups pay different amounts for delay minutes - therefore it encouraged those groups to be prioritised and others to disproportionately suffer more often. The “new” regime is much better for the customer, and overall performance.