Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here]. Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
Random Image
Current Train Running @GWR Twitter Feed Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
June 25, 2017, 04:37:06 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Train delays  (Read 426 times)
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 383


View Profile Email
« on: June 15, 2017, 10:27:19 PM »

Over the past several months, every evening the Crosscountry 16:30 train from BTM to Edinburgh has 'parked' outside BPW for several minutes. Why? Is the timetable too tight, or are GWR useless at running trains on time and freeing up platform 3?

Over the years, I have experienced many minutes on trains stuck outside stations waiting for platforms to be cleared, but only Reading station up to 2011/12 has equalled these delays in waiting for a platform.

Is there a known issue?
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16907



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2017, 10:44:21 PM »

Today the 15:56 Cardiff to Paddington was 12 minutes late, and that held it up.   The Cardiff train was 6 minutes late yesterday, 4 minutes late on Tuesday (and the Edinburgh just 2 late), and Monday's delays were identical to Tuesday's.
Logged

TransWilts Rail - Linking North to West and South 9 times a day. [see here]
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 383


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2017, 09:26:24 AM »

Thanks for the update.

So the next question,

  • is the timetable too tight
  • are GWR not capable of running to a timetable
  • does BPW require more capactity
Logged
rower40
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2017, 10:10:37 AM »

Thanks for the update.

So the next question,

  • is the timetable too tight
  • are GWR not capable of running to a timetable
  • does BPW require more capactity


(Meekly holds hand up slowly.  Gets ready to run for cover...)
The timetable for Bristol Parkway shows:
1L74 (1524 Swansea to Paddington) arr 1630H, dep 1633 platform 3.
2D20 (1615 Bristol TM to Bristol Parkway) arr 1634 platform 4
1S55 (1425 Plymouth to Edinburgh) arr 1638, dep 1639H.

2D20 leaves Filton Abbey Wood at 1626H, and has a 3.5 minute pathing allowance approaching Bristol Parkway, so that it is meant to follow 1L74.
But the ARS programming gets it wrong - it "thinks" that it can get 2D20 over the junction ahead of 1L74. If the signaller doesn't catch it in time, then 2D20 goes first, causing delay to 1L74, meaning it can't vacate its platform in time to prevent delay to 1S55.

But the good news: I'm doing a fix to the ARS logic (due to be installed in November) to sort this out.
Logged
Oxonhutch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 347



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2017, 11:03:51 AM »

Thanks Rower,

Please also could you have a look at the ARS logic that holds traffic on the Down Relief at Didcot East Junction.  I have spent too many minutes of my life at that locality - often being passed by an Up Local (showing the route into Didcot is clear) yet continuing to wait for a further conflicting crossing on the junction ahead.  Like the love of God - it passeth all understanding.
Logged
eightf48544
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3830


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2017, 11:21:53 AM »

Another place the ARS seems slow on the uptake is coming into Padd on Line 6 waiting by Royal Oak LUL for a platform. The Down train seems to have gone past  a long time before we move.
Logged
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 383


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2017, 11:33:26 AM »

Thanks rower for the update.

Obviously, as rail demand increases, some bright spark will have to consider someways to increase the capacity of places like BPW, possibly with A|B platforms.
Logged
chrisr_75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 876


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2017, 11:47:00 AM »

I believe the intent is to add a new platform at BPW
Logged
paul7755
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4167


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2017, 01:53:35 PM »

I believe the intent is to add a new platform at BPW

Indeed, and there are closures in the 'reasonably near future' for at least some of the required work:

https://www.gwr.com/travel-updates/planned-engineering/autumn-upgrade-2017

Paul

 
Logged
John R
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4136


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2017, 02:07:08 PM »

The new platform won't help matters as it will be in the down direction.  The additional platform in the up direction was added a few years ago, but the movements described by rower40 are conflicting, so the two moves can't take place in parallel despite the extra platform.
Logged
stuving
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2313


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2017, 02:09:39 PM »

The new platform won't help matters as it will be in the down direction.  The additional platform in the up direction was added a few years ago, but the movements described by rower40 are conflicting, so the two moves can't take place in parallel despite the extra platform.

If the new platform 1 is used for the terminators from the south, instead of platform 4, that would remove the conflicts. Whether it will be used that way is another matter.
Logged
chuffed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 748


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2017, 07:11:19 PM »

According to that esteemed organ of non fake news, otherwise known as the Bristol Evening Post, printed in Didcot.....Platform 11 at Temple Meads is closed because the heat has caused the expanding bitumen in the edging slabs to push them out of alignment, with the possibilty that trains could be scraped.

I wonder if they missed an extra letter p in that last word ?!
Logged
John R
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4136


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2017, 08:08:55 PM »

The new platform won't help matters as it will be in the down direction.  The additional platform in the up direction was added a few years ago, but the movements described by rower40 are conflicting, so the two moves can't take place in parallel despite the extra platform.

If the new platform 1 is used for the terminators from the south, instead of platform 4, that would remove the conflicts. Whether it will be used that way is another matter.

That's a very good point. Let's hope they do.
Logged
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1361


Somewhere in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2017, 08:38:36 PM »

If the new platform 1 is used for the terminators from the south, instead of platform 4, that would remove the conflicts. Whether it will be used that way is another matter.

According to the signalling scheme plan I have seen there will be no connection from the Filton direction to allow northbound trains to directly access the new platform no.1

Health Warning: The plan I have seen is dated 2011 (yes, the new platform has been planned for that long!)
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
John R
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4136


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2017, 10:20:10 PM »

Thanks for the clarification. (Though on a point of detail I didn't make the comments quoted as mine.)
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants