Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption elsewhere - ongoing, since Oct 2014

[whole diary]

[a-driver]

15 minutes lost between Reading and Maidenhead this morning on Paddington bound service.
This was due to congestion due to a late running freight train, apparently.
It's great that the entire morning peak commute is second class to freight.

The freight train activated a piece of equipment fitted to the track which detects wheelset faults.  The freight train was then allowed to proceed at a slow speed which then causes congestion behind it.

As I've said before, freight trains shouldn't be making there way towards London during the morning peak.  There simply isn't the space.

EDIT:  And now they've got a broken rail at Maidenhead.  Might be a coincidence, but this has happened after freight train with a defective wheel had recently passed through the area.

[ChrisB]

If they're given a path by Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)), of course there is.

So FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains don't fault on that stretch then?....news to me.'

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[a-driver]

If they're given a path by Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)), of course there is.

There are passenger trains delayed every single day by the same freight trains.  The paths they've been allocated are not achievable.  In our opinion, Network Rail (NR) hope that the freight train is delayed prior to reaching the Reading area so that they can then lay the delay minutes to another train operator.

So FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains don't fault on that stretch then?....news to me.

Our trains fail, course they do.  But what should be the priority at peak times, passengers or freight?


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[chrisr_75]

There are passenger trains delayed every single day by the same freight trains.  The paths they've been allocated are not achievable.  In our opinion, NR^» (Network Rail - home page) hope that the freight train is delayed prior to reaching the Reading area so that they can then lay the delay minutes to another train operator.

Who is/are 'our'? Is that an official/public FGW^▸ (First Great Western) opinion?

Our trains fail, course they do.  But what should be the priority at peak times, passengers or freight?

Neither. Both have paid their access fees, so should be fairly treated on that basis.

Personally, I would rather see slightly slower commuter trains and more freight on the railways, with less lorries on the roads, the latter being the cause of more congestion, more severe accidents and more damage to road infrastructure than cars.

[a-driver]

There are passenger trains delayed every single day by the same freight trains.  The paths they've been allocated are not achievable.  In our opinion, NR^» (Network Rail - home page) hope that the freight train is delayed prior to reaching the Reading area so that they can then lay the delay minutes to another train operator.

Who is/are 'our'? Is that an official/public FGW^▸ (First Great Western) opinion?

OK, I'll correct that.  It's my own personal opinion which does not reflect that of FGW or any another TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) or FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company).

Our trains fail, course they do.  But what should be the priority at peak times, passengers or freight?

Neither. Both have paid their access fees, so should be fairly treated on that basis.

Personally, I would rather see slightly slower commuter trains and more freight on the railways, with less lorries on the roads, the latter being the cause of more congestion, more severe accidents and more damage to road infrastructure than cars.

You're partially correct in what you're saying.  Unfortunately the fees paid by the freight companies does not totally cover the damage they cause to the infrastructure in terms of increased maintenance and renewals.  They rest of that cost is actually paid for by passengers which I believe is unfair.  However, charging them more would actually make freight by rail uncompetitive against road.
Personally I would like to see more freight on the rails but this shouldn't be done at the expense of the passenger in terms of punctuality and cost.  There is a time and place when freight trains should run and its not during the peaks especially on what is already described as a highly congested route into London.

[chrisr_75]

There are passenger trains delayed every single day by the same freight trains.  The paths they've been allocated are not achievable.  In our opinion, NR^» (Network Rail - home page) hope that the freight train is delayed prior to reaching the Reading area so that they can then lay the delay minutes to another train operator.

Who is/are 'our'? Is that an official/public FGW^▸ (First Great Western) opinion?

OK, I'll correct that.  It's own personal opinion which does not reflect that of FGW or any another TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) or FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company).

Sorry for potentially sounding picky, but wanted to clarify this, given your username...!

Neither. Both have paid their access fees, so should be fairly treated on that basis.

Personally, I would rather see slightly slower commuter trains and more freight on the railways, with less lorries on the roads, the latter being the cause of more congestion, more severe accidents and more damage to road infrastructure than cars.

You're partially correct in what you're saying.  Unfortunately the fees paid by the freight companies does not totally cover the damage they cause to the infrastructure in terms of increased maintenance and renewals.  They rest of that cost is actually paid for by passengers which I believe is unfair.  However, charging them more would actually make freight by rail uncompetitive against road.
Personally I would like to see more freight on the rails but this shouldn't be done at the expense of the passenger in terms of punctuality and cost.  There is a time and place when freight trains should run and its not during the peaks especially on what is already described as a highly congested route into London.

I see, I didn't know they generally caused more wear & tear than they paid for. Could this wear & tear be mitigated by better maintenance of wagons/locos? Are there available paths that could accommodate these 'peak' freight trains without impacting on overnight maintenance and so on?

Glad to see the rail passengers fund some freight though - it helps everyone else by removing some lorries from the roads and mitigates some of the subsidy the non-train using population is forced to fund! 

[a-driver]

No, you're not being picky!  I fully understand where you are coming from.

To back up what I said, here's a link from the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about). 
http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2013/rail-freight-charges-to-better-reflect-costs-and-give-industry-clarity-to-plan-for-the-future-orr

"Over the past decade the regulator has supported an almost 10% increase in freight traffic on Britain's rail network by allowing greater access for freight services and setting targets for Network Rail to deliver improved reliability. However, under the current regime, freight companies only pay a small proportion of the costs they create using the network ^ and we need to redress this balance. ^

^ Today, we have confirmed new charges for freight operators, to be gradually introduced from 2016, which better reflect the costs created by running freight services on the rail network and provide early certainty for business to plan for the future. The new charges, capped at manageable levels, will mean freight operators paying, at most, a third of the costs their services create. This will help to ease some of the burden from taxpayers' and passengers' shoulders. ^


I honestly don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to the standard of maintenance when it comes to freight wagons so I can't really comment on that. Overnight paths?  not with the current level of engineering works. 
I suppose you've got to wait until Easter when Reading Station works are fully completed before you can really judge the impact of freight trains between Reading and Acton.  At the moment any train coming up through Reading West, goes through Reading station platform 7 & 8 and then has to crossover at the east end of the station blocking all 4 lines. 

[Adelante_CCT]

Lets not forget that under normal circumstances there are no (or very few) peak flow freights between Acton and Reading, the recent squash of trains on the reliefs being down to Harbury, and the exceptionally long diversion of the Bicester COD to Didcot service.

[TaplowGreen]

Cancellations to services between Slough and Maidenhead

Due to signalling problems between Slough and Maidenhead trains have to run at reduced speed on the Reading bound main line.
Impact:
Train services running through these stations may be cancelled, delayed by up to 20 mins or revised. An estimate for the resumption of normal services will be provided as soon as the problem has been fully assessed.
Additional Information:
Rail Ticket Holders may also travel on First Berkshire Buses during this disruption, if you wish to use local buses as an alternative means of transport and the local bus is not accepting First Great Western tickets, please keep the bus ticket and send it, together with your rail ticket, to us for a refund. Ticket acceptance will remain in place until further notice

[ChrisB]

I hope the refund is in cash in this case, not vouchers

[NickB]

It's not a signal failure causing chaos this evening but rather a broken down train. The 18.18 Padd to Oxford failed in the depot.

It was eventually resurrected but with an amended calling plan. Several points of mayhem:

As anyone who knows this service knows it is 99% Maidenhead passengers. In fact it is nigh on empty after Maidenhead. So a big round of applause for the decision to axe Maidenhead on the amended plan. It went out totally empty.

Well done also for not announcing the train failure whilst the 18.12 Henley train was available. That would have provided some relief.

Instead the world and his brothers are dangerously overcrowded on the 18.42 to Bourne end. A slow service at the best of times and tonight it's an abhorrent one too.

[Western Enterprise]

As anyone who knows this service knows it is 99% Maidenhead passengers. In fact it is nigh on empty after Maidenhead. So a big round of applause for the decision to axe Maidenhead on the amended plan. It went out totally empty.

Well done also for not announcing the train failure whilst the 18.12 Henley train was available. That would have provided some relief.

Instead the world and his brothers are dangerously overcrowded on the 18.42 to Bourne end. A slow service at the best of times and tonight it's an abhorrent one too.

Large slice of Irony pie please.....
The 18.42 was v unpleasant.
Not to mention a 40 minute delay.

[JayMac]

Problems at Airport Junction this morning with a points failure. Relief lines are blocked.

[eightf48544]

Nick B and Western Enterprise do seem to have highlighted a problem which seems to be endemic at Paddington that of failing to give timely information on cancelled/late trains and late indication of platforms for particular services, especialy at times of disruptions.

The latter problem applies particulary to Platfom 13/4 even when services are running normally. It  has it's own thread already.

Presumably there are too many links in the chain. OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) depot, Swindon control (both FGW^▸ (First Great Western)), TVSC^» (Thames Valley Signalling Centre - about) (Network Rail) and Paddington both Network Rail/FGW.

[TaplowGreen]

Problems at Airport Junction this morning with a points failure. Relief lines are blocked.

........well there is a "y" in the day after all.

.....how about a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Coffeeshop Forum sweepstake on the first date that there isn't a signal meltdown? Anyone feeling brave?