Moving the goalposts

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:55 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3401839.stm

davidaward · Post by **davidaward** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:57 am

The latest and probably lamest way ever to improve public relations with statistics

trainmad · Post by **trainmad** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:04 am

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:49 pm

Isnt this accepting point blank that journey times will in no way be imporving. If theya re now saying the only way to make trains arrive on time is to increase the time they are allowed to take.

Why not just say. We're going to make all trains arrive on time for 2004 onwards simply by increasing the printed journey time. That way it will still take just as long, but it will arrive on time!

ianmacmillan · Post by **ianmacmillan** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:02 pm

Its a bit worrying that the are being urged to do this before the election.

I thought the regulator was supposed to be independant.

johncas · Post by **johncas** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:26 pm

I was on that MML HST this week well makeing jurney times longer wont help if you get a signal fail or another problemb you could stil be late and trains can run on time on the current timetable it's not that hard train leaves on time train arives on time if thee is no problembs on jurney you ahould not be late adding more time on just means trains wont keep comeing in 1, 2 or 3 mimutes late

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:43 pm

Don't they already do this by building in 'recovery time' ?

Although in a way I do understand.
A time table that can't be kept to is pointless, might as well make it a realistic representation of the expected journey time.

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:56 pm

This is not the way to improve performance. Beating the HSE back into it's pit of fire and brimstone, and changing the rule book, will.

Aside:
Why is Stagecoach singled out in the links? If I were in Stagecoach's PR, I'd be threatening law suits!

chriscooper · Post by **chriscooper** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:36 pm

I wonder how they are going to manage to imcrease journey times anyway, by increasing station stops, something that is likely to annoy passengers, or perhaps by simply increasing journey times and making trains sit outside stations, also annoying, especially if its the station you want to get off at, even more so if you have to see the connection that you could have normally caught go past whilst you are waiting. Unlike many policies on the railways it should do a lot to improve punctuality figures though and I'm sure everyone will be slapping themselves on the back in a few years time when reliabillity is improved. Passengers though won't see the difference, other than their journeys taking longer. The sorts of minor delays this will sort out won't really effect passengers anyway, whats 5 mins, you'd either be pretty stupid or confident in the reliability of the service (or unreliability of the conencting service) to leave 5 mins for a connection. The sort of delays that really annoy passengers, I tend to find 10 mins or more annoying, will still occur, along with the major delays and the canecellations.

nightbeaver911 · Post by **nightbeaver911** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:47 pm

I agree with Chris, IMO since X-country line speeds have been increased alot of Voyagers have been arriving into stations five or so minutes early. This not only makes the station unpleasent to sit on (not everyone loves listening to Voyager engines) its also a pain for the power box if they need that platform for another train and passengers get irritable if they have to sit in a platform for ages people want to be moving.

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:14 pm

One of the biggest problems with increasing journey times is you tend to get trains waiting outside stations for long periods or drivers hanging about, which is all fine and dandy but if there no available platform, it's possible that trains behind may get delayed and so on. Of course it's judge a typical fudge, when really what should be happening is the structure should be looked at to get the costs down to reasonable levels. Never mind the political games.

Then,

- Get staff multiskilled so you have eyes everywhere looking AND dealing with problems...this is why vertical integration is PARAMOUNT.

- Install Bi direction signalling on all main lines.

- Install flashing yellows into goods loops

- Upgrade selected goods loops for passenger use

- Make the management structure as simple as possible, and get managers involved with the front line and other staff involved with decision making. That doesn't mean taking them away from roles, that means good communication.

- Professionalize all signallers and drivers

- Make use of bi-directional signalling to exploit quiet periods to renew track circuits and rails., and on other lines during the night. I understand about HSE requirements but surely it's not beyond wit and wisdom to come up with some workable solution? Skilled p-way men would be a start.

- Replacement of mechanical signalling first priority with axle counters and CBI. If the system can't be made to fit NR standards, then change the standards.

- Replacement of level crossings with bridges where posibble on main lines.

nwallace · Post by **nwallace** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:43 pm

If the system can't be made to fit NR standards, then change the standards.

If the system can't be made up to the standards then you would have to ask why the standard thats been written is unworkable.

If its workable in other countries then you have to wonder why the system can't be made up to the standard.

AS for all this anti-HSE ..

The Health and Safety Executive rules are there to provide safety legistlation for people. Therfore their rules are there to make things safe.
If you ignore this AND soemthing happens that is caused by your ignorance your in the . big time.
The UKs HSE is miles ahead of many other European Countries.
3 Countries got in the . a few years ago because of their safety legislation being poor (Ireland was 1 can't remember the rest.probably italy and spain)
Companies are responsible for the safety of their employees and their customers. There are now laws that mean that the directors of a company can be held responsible for manslaughter/culpable homicide (Corporate Killing) that is demed to be caused by company policy.
Note: Im probably well off in some areas of that soemone more qualified would be able to provide a correct representation of it. (All ive done is read my dads copies of SHP and IOSH newsleters when on the bog)

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:00 pm

nwallace wrote:
If the system can't be made to fit NR standards, then change the standards.
If the system can't be made up to the standards then you would have to ask why the standard thats been written is unworkable.

If its workable in other countries then you have to wonder why the system can't be made up to the standard.

AS for all this anti-HSE ..

The Health and Safety Executive rules are there to provide safety legistlation for people. Therfore their rules are there to make things safe.
If you ignore this AND soemthing happens that is caused by your ignorance your in the . big time.
The UKs HSE is miles ahead of many other European Countries.
3 Countries got in the . a few years ago because of their safety legislation being poor (Ireland was 1 can't remember the rest.probably italy and spain)
Companies are responsible for the safety of their employees and their customers. There are now laws that mean that the directors of a company can be held responsible for manslaughter/culpable homicide (Corporate Killing) that is demed to be caused by company policy.
Note: Im probably well off in some areas of that soemone more qualified would be able to provide a correct representation of it. (All ive done is read my dads copies of SHP and IOSH newsleters when on the bog)

Maybe our working conditions are much better - and safer - than other countries', but there's a limit to how safe something can be. There's no point making the railway - or any other industry - so safe that it can't run efficiently or at reasonable cost. We need HSE in some form, otherwise - as you say - we'd probably be in the same sh*t as Ireland and the other two countries supposedly were, but, in their quest for complete safety, the HSE are slowing stopping the country functioning at all!

Reading the last issue of RAIL magazine (which isn't the cause of my views on HSE, by the way - I'm capable of forming my own ideas

), the examples were given of the concrete staircase being branded a fire hazard, and trains being forced to use the turnback siding at Newcraighall because there's an incredibly remote chance they might run away.

If HSE allowed a little common sense to be used, and realised that there's a risk of injury involved in everything we do, then, with the use of suggestions like Goingnorth's, we might be on the way to getting a big problem sorted.

nightbeaver911 · Post by **nightbeaver911** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:03 pm

Goingnorth wrote:
- Install flashing yellows into goods loops

What will flashing yellow mean to the driver? Proceed with extreme caution??

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:24 pm

nightbeaver911 wrote:
Goingnorth wrote:
- Install flashing yellows into goods loops

What will flashing yellow mean to the driver? Proceed with extreme caution??

The driver will see a flashing double yellow and flashing single yellow at the signals before the one controlling entry into the goods loop, which will be displaying yellow with a 'feather'. This means that the driver no longer needs to be brought nearly to a stand at the last signal. Effectively advance warning of a diverging route, and a good way of getting trains into goods loops more efficiently.