The State of UK Rail - some personal experiences

[locoholic]

Chaos on services to Waterloo this morning due to over-running engineering works....

Not just into Waterloo, either, by all accounts. Southern and Thameslink also having problems.

 

Network Rail to blame for over-running engineering works in the Hampton Court area, and SWR just throws in the towel everywhere.

 

I am so glad I no longer need to use the rail network.

[Southernman46]

Network Rail to blame for over-running engineering works in the Hampton Court area, and SWR just throws in the towel everywhere.

Oh yes - based on last weeks' Putney fatality shennanikins, we will no doubt still be feeling the ripples late this afternoon West of Salisbury when I foolishly attempt to get in for a night shift ...........................................  1L60-chance of reaching Waterloo or 1L64-tunate if it gets beyond Salisbury

 

I left a message on SWR feedback website after last nights' delayed journey - I felt that having 63% of my journey's on their trains delayed in the last 4 weeks was a bit much and it was time to comment ................. they don't like what I had to say judging by the reply this AM ................ have just replied asking "Then why ask in the first place then"  ........ TWATS.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Southernman46

[phil-b259]

Chaos on services to Waterloo this morning due to over-running engineering works....

 

 

Not just into Waterloo, either, by all accounts. Southern and Thameslink also having problems.

 

Network Rail to blame for over-running engineering works in the Hampton Court area, and SWR just throws in the towel everywhere.

 

I am so glad I no longer need to use the rail network.

 

Overrunning engineering work is not exactly a new phenomenon - certainly it used to happen reasonably frequently under BR too.

 

Of course with BR generally running less trains than the currently privatised setup and with BR not having to contend with instant social media posts, any disruption incurred under BR may not have seemed quite so bad - particularly for those wearing rose tinted specs.

 

Naturally that doesn't mean engineering overruns are 'acceptable' or that potential travellers have been severely inconvenienced this morning - but people (and machines) are fallible. Just because its the railway doesn't mean everything is always going to go right.

[locoholic]

Overrunning engineering work is not exactly a new phenomenon - certainly it used to happen reasonably frequently under BR too.

 

Of course with BR generally running less trains than the currently privatised setup and with BR not having to contend with instant social media posts, any disruption incurred under BR may not have seemed quite so bad - particularly for those wearing rose tinted specs.

 

Naturally that doesn't mean engineering overruns are 'acceptable' or that potential travellers have been severely inconvenienced this morning - but people (and machines) are fallible. Just because its the railway doesn't mean everything is always going to go right.

It's not just odd things go wrong occasionally, is it? There is just zero resilience in today's railway. A problem near Surbiton stopped almost everything, even on routes away from Surbiton.

[Reorte]

It's not just odd things go wrong occasionally, is it? There is just zero resilience in today's railway. A problem near Surbiton stopped almost everything, even on routes away from Surbiton.

I suppose if you use something to capacity routinely then there'll never be the capacity around to absorb some of the impact of problems. Paying for extra capacity for when it's needed isn't a popular choice these days, particularly when failures are rather less frequent and more widely spread. e.g. it makes sense to have spare locos locally if breakdowns are reasonably common, since they'll get used, not so much if they're infrequent. So things actually go wrong less frequently but cause more problems when they do.

[locoholic]

I suppose if you use something to capacity routinely then there'll never be the capacity around to absorb some of the impact of problems. Paying for extra capacity for when it's needed isn't a popular choice these days, particularly when failures are rather less frequent and more widely spread. e.g. it makes sense to have spare locos locally if breakdowns are reasonably common, since they'll get used, not so much if they're infrequent. So things actually go wrong less frequently but cause more problems when they do.

To some extent that is true, but we are now apparently reaching the stage, especially with the centralisation of signalling systems, where a problem in one location stops everything everywhere. Has anyone actually stopped to ask whether the effiency and capacity gains being made from modern signalling are worth the costs when it inevitably goes wrong, particularly since the system is now so large and complicated that it is harder to fix when it does go wrong?

[rockershovel]

Overrunning engineering work is not exactly a new phenomenon - certainly it used to happen reasonably frequently under BR too.

 

Of course with BR generally running less trains than the currently privatised setup and with BR not having to contend with instant social media posts, any disruption incurred under BR may not have seemed quite so bad - particularly for those wearing rose tinted specs.

 

Naturally that doesn't mean engineering overruns are 'acceptable' or that potential travellers have been severely inconvenienced this morning - but people (and machines) are fallible. Just because its the railway doesn't mean everything is always going to go right.

From the news reports, Waterloo services are completely closed. That would have made national news under any regime.

[Foulounoux]

so as to keep this topic on the straight and narrow I have posted in the overseas section on the Charente observations

[Rowsley17D]

Chaos on Northern yesterday too

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46262161

 

How do leaves on the line cause damage to wheels so bad the carriages have to be taken out of service?

[david.hill64]

Chaos on Northern yesterday too

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46262161

 

How do leaves on the line cause damage to wheels so bad the carriages have to be taken out of service?

Leaves cause very low adhesion between the wheel and the rail that can allow the wheels to lock up in braking. When they next meet a high adhesion area, the friction between the wheel and the rail causes localised heating of the steel in the wheel to the point where its structure changes. This is then rapidly cooled by the bulk of the cold metal in the wheel such that a hard brittle compound called Martensite forms. This spalls out of the wheel giving a chacteristic wheelflat and cracks in the wheel. These must be turned out on a wheel lathe to avoid the possibility that the wheel will break up. Hence vehicles are taken out of service for turning. There tends to be a backlog at this time of the year.

Edited November 22, 2018 by david.hill64

[Zomboid]

It's not something to be proud of, but the fact is that every transport system suffers a major meltdown in service quality every so often (hour long delays on the motorway, people sleeping in airport departure lounges, huge queues at the ports).

It's just how it goes.

[APOLLO]

Northern railways crap.  So it's car again to Manchester this saturday. I used to like trains once (real ones that is !!!!!!!!!!!!).

 

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailMAN/status/1064923072216453120

 

Saturday engineering works Due to late-notice engineering work on the Manchester-Preston route, there are changes to @northernassist services between #Wigan, #Bolton & #Manchester Check before you travel @nationalrailenq We’re sorry for the inconvenience this will cause.

 

Brit15

[ColinK]

It's not something to be proud of, but the fact is that every transport system suffers a major meltdown in service quality every so often (hour long delays on the motorway, people sleeping in airport departure lounges, huge queues at the ports).

It's just how it goes.

Agree, predicting how long it will take to drive from the north west to the Midlands via the M6 is always impossible. That said, Northern and TPE’s punctuality have been dreadful and some of that is due to the simple fact that the timetable assumes that every train though the centre of Manchester will be on time - just one train a few minutes late and the service falls apart as there is no leeway for late running. Similarly, many services have such short turnround times eg at Manchester Airport, that if a train arrives at its terminus late, it will start its next journey late - hence many trains being turned short of their destination. Unrealistic diagramming and poor timetable planning is part of the problem.

[Reorte]

Leaves cause very low adhesion between the wheel and the rail that can allow the wheels to lock up in braking. When they next meet a high adhesion area, the friction between the wheel and the rail causes localised heating of the steel in the wheel to the point where it’s structure changes. This is then rapidly cooled by the bulk of the cold metal in the wheel such that a hard brittle compound called Martensite forms. This spalls out of the wheel giving a chacteristic wheelflat and cracks in the wheel. These must be turned out on a wheel lathe to avoid the possibility that the wheel will break up. Hence vehicles are taken out of service for turning. There tends to be a backlog at this time of the year.

I've felt "thump thump thump" through my feet as a train's approached the platform before. Easy to realise when that happens that it shouldn't be running for much longer without attention.

[The Stationmaster]

Agree, predicting how long it will take to drive from the north west to the Midlands via the M6 is always impossible. That said, Northern and TPE’s punctuality have been dreadful and some of that is due to the simple fact that the timetable assumes that every train though the centre of Manchester will be on time - just one train a few minutes late and the service falls apart as there is no leeway for late running. Similarly, many services have such short turnround times eg at Manchester Airport, that if a train arrives at its terminus late, it will start its next journey late - hence many trains being turned short of their destination. Unrealistic diagramming and poor timetable planning is part of the problem.

 

Not so much poor timetable planning (which is carried out according to Rules set by the infrastructure owner of course) but inadequate infrastructure.  Services through Manchester were planned against what the infrastructure owner said could be reliably delivered - trouble is that said owner's failure to increase the infrastructure (and probably relying on computer printouts rather than ordinary operational commonsense?) meant it is not delivering what it said it could deliver. 

 

Short turnround times are a consequence of squeezing utilisation of the assets including both trains and platform space, if you don't squeeze them you have greater running costs or fewer trains - who sets the goalposts there (hint, their office is in London, Horseferry Road should find them).  So hardly unrealistic diagramming in today's world (or indeed the world of the past 30 or more years in Britain) and definitely not - at least in Northern's case, poor timetable planning but planning according to what they were told they could plan to - that is very different from blaming it on the trainplanners.

[Mike Storey]

Apart from the 

 

Not so much poor timetable planning (which is carried out according to Rules set by the infrastructure owner of course) but inadequate infrastructure.  Services through Manchester were planned against what the infrastructure owner said could be reliably delivered - trouble is that said owner's failure to increase the infrastructure (and probably relying on computer printouts rather than ordinary operational commonsense?) meant it is not delivering what it said it could deliver. 

 

Short turnround times are a consequence of squeezing utilisation of the assets including both trains and platform space, if you don't squeeze them you have greater running costs or fewer trains - who sets the goalposts there (hint, their office is in London, Horseferry Road should find them).  So hardly unrealistic diagramming in today's world (or indeed the world of the past 30 or more years in Britain) and definitely not - at least in Northern's case, poor timetable planning but planning according to what they were told they could plan to - that is very different from blaming it on the trainplanners.

 

Apart from the urgently needed completion of the Bolton route electrification, which will ease matters AFAIK from snippets I have read, the DfT needs to urgently authorise the four tracking between Oxford Road and Piccadilly. Quite why this was "paused", when a few planning issues were hit, after the huge expense and effort of creating the Ordsall Chord, the full benefits of which will never be fully realised without it.

[APOLLO]

How would the 4 tracking between Oxford Road and Piccadilly be carried out without demolition of prime buildings (some fairly newish)?. Double decking the already raised tracks ?

 

I'm not surprised it's paused - a nightmare of a job indeed, notwithstanding the mega costs and even mega mega delays cancellations service closures this would cause.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.469341,-2.2354256,841a,35y,39.21t/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Still, such works have been done down in London, so it's about time Manchester (and other cities) received some big investment in rail infrastructure.

 

Brit15

[Reorte]

How would the 4 tracking between Oxford Road and Piccadilly be carried out without demolition of prime buildings (some fairly newish)?. Double decking the already raised tracks ?

 

I'm not surprised it's paused - a nightmare of a job indeed, notwithstanding the mega costs and even mega mega delays cancellations service closures this would cause.

There was a bit of fuss about the pub near Picadilly although it's the Oxford Road end that looks like it's the really tricky bit. Double decking sounds like it would require some steep gradients and still need space for new junctions somehow. Here's an insane idea - continue it from Oxford Road's bays, built over Whitworth Street and Fairfield Street, so the two halves of the quads are on different alignments. Slightly more seriously I thought the plan was for extra platforms at Picadilly rather than 4 tracking between Picadilly and Oxford Road, although the latter sounds rather useful if it's even possible. I suppose you could just lose some floors of the multistory carpark, possibly go over the building on Princess Street, but the entrance to Oxford Road itself looks very problematic.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Reorte

[BWsTrains]

When I posted this Topic back in October starting: "Since our recent trip to UK I've been wondering where to post my thoughts, experiences and ramblings on the current state of Rail travel here." little did I realise how far and wide the topic would range, to quote the Psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers:  "There's enough material there for an entire Conference" (of Psychiatrists presumably)

 

The same might be said of UK Railway Infrastructure and Planning. The latest twist here, centred around the Ordsall Chord highlights again how the ball has been dropped in the absence of (an assumed) common goal to improve transport infrastructure for the benefit of all, users and the general economy.

 

Never having heard of said "Chord" I consulted Prof Wiki and came up with this which I felt encapsulates the state of affairs (assuming its general accuracy):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordsall_Chord

 

By the late 20th century, the rail network in Manchester could not support demand. The main stations at Piccadilly and Victoria were not linked and many trains terminated at Victoria taking up excessive platform space. One solution, the Picc-Vic tunnel between the stations, was proposed in the 1970s but rejected on cost grounds in 1977.

 

A curve at Ordsall linking Piccadilly to Victoria was proposed in the late 1970s when it was known as the Castlefield Curve after the nearby district.A bill relating to its proposed construction was debated in the House of Commons in June 1979, receiving some support but it was opposed on the grounds that a tunnel would provide a better alternative. By the end of the year, British Rail had received parliamentary powers to construct the line. It was estimated to cost around £10 million but following opposition from local politicians and a shortage of funding, the project was never started. By 1985 it had been abandoned.

 

The proposal was included in a draft Network Rail report in 2005 as a solution to overcrowding in the region, at an expected cost of £44 million.[9] In February 2010, the project was revived by Network Rail as part of the Manchester Hub Study, with the intention of receiving government funding by around 2014.[3] On 23 March 2011 George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced £85 million funding for the scheme in the 2011 budget. The announcement was unexpected and was welcomed by the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority

 

I guess all this is no news to most of you here but to me it is a sad reflection of the situation in the UK when elsewhere in the World, countries are embracing Rail infrastructure with much greater energy and enthusiasm, roads often having reached their physical limitations.

 

 

Colin

Edited November 21, 2018 by BWsTrains

[62613]

There was a bit of fuss about the pub near Picadilly although it's the Oxford Road end that looks like it's the really tricky bit. Double decking sounds like it would require some steep gradients and still need space for new junctions somehow. Here's an insane idea - continue it from Oxford Road's bays, built over Whitworth Street and Fairfield Street, so the two halves of the quads are on different alignments. Slightly more seriously I thought the plan was for extra platforms at Picadilly rather than 4 tracking between Picadilly and Oxford Road, although the latter sounds rather useful if it's even possible. I suppose you could just lose some floors of the multistory carpark, possibly go over the building on Princess Street, but the entrance to Oxford Road itself looks very problematic.

I thought the original plan included quadrupling between Ox. Road and Piccadilly, a grade-separated junction at Ardwick. and reopening one of the single-line Standedge Tunnels; the last two were de-scoped. The 4-tracking was scuppered, as you say, by Manchester City Council refusing planning permission for the demolition of The Star and Garter pub on Fairfield Street. Certainly adding all the extra passenger traffic to  the existing overcrowded infrastructure has done nothing for punctuality.

[EmporiaSub]

Local rail services in Cardiff are extremely poor on Sundays, though a lot better than they were 10 years or so ago when they were virtually non-existent.

Having just returned from a Friday and Saturday in the Cardiff area, you realise how good the service is in the south east!

A 153 on a Friday afternoon to Cheltenham. Rammed!

A 150 on a Friday afternoon to Holyhead. Again rammed!

4 car Valley trains f&s in the peak, leaving Queen Street.

And as for the 1 - 2 minute turnarounds on many Valley lines, we left Cardiff Central on time but we're only 5 minutes behind the previous Penarth service. Needless to say we got delayed waiting to get on the single line and got turned back at Dingle Road!

[ColinK]

The Ordsall chord would only work if the line was quadrupled from there to Piccadilly, providing more track capacity and reducing conflicting moves on the flat junction at Deansgate. We’ve got the Ordsall Chord but no extra tracks - hence lots of trains running late.

 

If you have a look at a up to date railway map, you’ll see all the flat junctions between Piccadilly and Victoria, a recipe for operational problems and delays.

[Mike Storey]

When I posted this Topic back in October starting: "Since our recent trip to UK I've been wondering where to post my thoughts, experiences and ramblings on the current state of Rail travel here." little did I realise how far and wide the topic would range, to quote the Psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers:  "There's enough material there for an entire Conference" (of Psychiatrists presumably)

 

The same might be said of UK Railway Infrastructure and Planning. The latest twist here, centred around the Ordsall Chord highlights again how the ball has been dropped in the absence of (an assumed) common goal to improve transport infrastructure for the benefit of all, users and the general economy.

 

Never having heard of said "Chord" I consulted Prof Wiki and came up with this which I felt encapsulates the state of affairs (assuming its general accuracy):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordsall_Chord

 

By the late 20th century, the rail network in Manchester could not support demand. The main stations at Piccadilly and Victoria were not linked and many trains terminated at Victoria taking up excessive platform space. One solution, the Picc-Vic tunnel between the stations, was proposed in the 1970s but rejected on cost grounds in 1977.

 

A curve at Ordsall linking Piccadilly to Victoria was proposed in the late 1970s when it was known as the Castlefield Curve after the nearby district.A bill relating to its proposed construction was debated in the House of Commons in June 1979, receiving some support but it was opposed on the grounds that a tunnel would provide a better alternative. By the end of the year, British Rail had received parliamentary powers to construct the line. It was estimated to cost around £10 million but following opposition from local politicians and a shortage of funding, the project was never started. By 1985 it had been abandoned.

 

The proposal was included in a draft Network Rail report in 2005 as a solution to overcrowding in the region, at an expected cost of £44 million.[9] In February 2010, the project was revived by Network Rail as part of the Manchester Hub Study, with the intention of receiving government funding by around 2014.[3] On 23 March 2011 George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced £85 million funding for the scheme in the 2011 budget. The announcement was unexpected and was welcomed by the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority

 

I guess all this is no news to most of you here but to me it is a sad reflection of the situation in the UK when elsewhere in the World, countries are embracing Rail infrastructure with much greater energy and enthusiasm, roads often having reached their physical limitations.

 

 

Colin

 

Your Wiki quote has missed a huge chunk of the more recent history to the Ordsall Chord. A single individual managed to prevent the construction of the chord for about three/four years beyond the planned date, by invoking every possible legal means to object on the grounds that it severed the world's oldest, extant railway terminal. Notwithstanding the fact that it had already become a museum and that the rail connection was barely used, and could be circumvented by road transport when exhibits needed to be relocated. But such is democracy, and if any of us were in a position where "national interest" could severely impact our lives, we would appreciate the balance of the law available to us. (Many on the route of HS2 might disagree, but they do have recourse to a compensation regime rather more generous than legal minima).

 

So, when you compare this to countries that have "embraced" increased rail infrastructure, I believe we part ways. Almost all of those concern countries with no such legal protections of the individual - India and China in particular. Where "rail" infrastructure has been radically increased in developed countries, it has tended to be by use of metro or tram systems, where community disruption is minimised, and local connectivity is prized above regional or national inter-connectivity. Manchester is no stranger to such initiatives, and is probably, along with Birmingham, the most successful in pursuing this. Leeds has been amongst the least successful, and the disparity shows in the relative growth of each, given Leeds was about the fastest growing metropolis outside London in the 1980's, but is far down the league table now.

 

On heavy rail, most European countries have avoided urban destruction whilst building their high speed infrastructure, with some exceptions, preferring to use existing infrastructure to gain access, and thus sub-optimising benefits. HS2 in the UK is bold (as was HS1 eventually), in that it takes dedicated, new infrastructure right into city centres, hence the level of dissent it has engendered. Do not confuse "enthusiasm" with good sense.

[BWsTrains]

Mike,

 

Your comments are right, up to a point. One certainly can't generalise about issues regarding Rail development and I had no intention of doing so. However your additional comments on the Ordsall Chord saga highlight specific UK problems that when faced elsewhere have been managed.

 

Let us take just one case of many, Bologna, an historic and cultural centre of global renown and when their Rail development went thru (2013) they found the ways and means to protect their heritage and embrace advances in Rail Technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Centrale_railway_station

a magnificent new Mainline station under the existing.

 

The Italians are at least as proud of their Cultural Heritage as is the UK, what is lacking in the UK approach, I'll leave others to debate.

 

Colin

[Mike Storey]

Mike,

 

Your comments are right, up to a point. One certainly can't generalise about issues regarding Rail development and I had no intention of doing so. However your additional comments on the Ordsall Chord saga highlight specific UK problems that when faced elsewhere have been managed.

 

Let us take just one case of many, Bologna, an historic and cultural centre of global renown and when their Rail development went thru (2013) they found the ways and means to protect their heritage and embrace advances in Rail Technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Centrale_railway_station

a magnificent new Mainline station under the existing.

 

The Italians are at least as proud of their Cultural Heritage as is the UK, what is lacking in the UK approach, I'll leave others to debate.

 

Colin

 

No contention about overt, State and Tourist department Italian passion for their heritage Colin. My wife's family is half-Italian and we have some intimate knowledge of their views, as well as going there at least annually. From personal experience, the average Italian, at least in the north, does not give a sh1t, unless it somehow makes money, and reduces their taxes. What they really care about is food, appearance, music and family, but all together with money.

 

Your example of Bologna is misplaced. I attended, as part of a delegation from Railtrack Major Stations, a series of meetings with FS Grande Stazione (modelled almost exactly on what we had created) in the late 1990's/early 2000's, in Rome, Milan and Bologna. They wanted our opinion on their plans for almost total demolition of around 15 of their largest stations, and replacement by what they perceived as our greatest achievement at the time (actually BR's) at Liverpool Street and Euston, and wanted to leech our retailing experience (which was seriously good at the time). The Bologna plan recognised no cultural or architectural heritage, just prospective earnings per square metre. The Rome plan was similar, but demolition was largely underground. The Milan plan was even more adventurous (they believed it would be their most profitable). We knifed all of their plans, when we analysed them, saying the ROC was heroic, and the underlying assumptions unsupported. We were unwilling  to enter into the partnership they wanted.

 

True, this was before the High Speed network plan had become fully developed (let alone funded) but it was there as an underlying assumption (hence their over-optimistic footfall predictions). I would earnestly suggest that the retention of certain architectural heritage is almost incidental (there is little of any real heritage in Bologna, given what their minor industrial revolution and Mussolini's efforts did to the city) and that they merely found the best combination of cost versus potential income and went with that. It is certainly not true in Milan, where resistance to major excavations and disruption were far more effective. It is also very true to say that Turin, its third most rich city, has been almost destroyed by the pursuit of Mammon. My in-laws come from the Assisi area, and I have full knowledge of that. Only Venice and certain of the North East cities/towns with huge dependence on tourism, are defying the inevitability of "progress", and that is largely with the enormous help of UK and US beneficiaries.

 

So, along with the enormous fiscal corruption in the south, and the corruption of power in the north (epitomised by La Liga), I would hesitate to use Italy as an example of balanced planning, fantastic though the Alta Velocita network is now proving to be.