PRACTICE & PERFORMANCE
EXTRA TIME
A
e inclusion in timetables of ‘recovery time’ is a source of much heated debate – and has been for at least half a century. Taking a deep breath, John Heaton FCILT delves into this whole vexed subject.
memorable exchange of views on train performance took place in the columns of Trains Illustrated during 1957 when the doyen of train performance writers, C J Allen, joined battle with that most accomplished of operators, G F Fiennes. Allen suggested that the way Fiennes advocated large blocks of recovery time was counter-productive to accurate time-keeping. More than 50 years on, the debate over the most efficient way of using timetable allowances retains its relevance. In 1957, Fiennes was still a decade from publishing his seminal autobiography ‘I Tried to Run a Railway’ and had yet to cement his redoubtable reputation. Allen adopted an adversarial stance in a situation where establishing common ground might instead have enabled these two giants to distil the essence of the debate. To say the participants “agreed to differ” would be to put a gloss on reality. Operators have tended to construct main line timetables by using block recovery times and suburban ones by adding a contingency allowance, usually five per cent, to sectional running times (SRTs). The Southern Region of British Railways, and its successors, have used the contingency allowance method even on trunk routes. Most enthusiasts agree with Allen and most British Railways-trained operators follow Fiennes. Contemporary Trains Illustrated readers certainly supported their columnist, but when I raised the matter recently with a retired Western Region deputy general manager, he responded with an exposition that mirrored the exact position of Fiennes. 32 • The Railway Magazine • July 2012
Allocation of recovery time is just one aspect of the timetable structure and cannot be discussed in isolation from the compilation process. Before the computer age, scheduled running times between stations were a haphazard affair. It would be a step too far to call it intuitive but it was unarguably empirical, based on guards’ journals, control records and sometimes on reports from ‘investigators’. With a wide variety of motive power (even within the same class), disparate rolling stock and uneven signal spacing, it was often necessary to assess running times on an individual basis. Systems of maximum load limits succeeded in classifying many of the variables but could still result in schedules within the same band that could be either excessively tight or slack. It was obvious that timings must at least cater for average locomotives, with normal coal and competent, rather than ‘crack’, crews. Advocating realism rather than conservatism, but recognising that one should not plan for failure, Fiennes said: “The timetable must be a promise not a hope.” Allen responded with a log featuring the legendary driver Bill Hoole recouping shovelsful of time with A4 No. 60025 Falcon, a weak argument that Fiennes
eagerly exploited. Allen was on firmer ground when he queried whether it was not block recovery time that was responsible for an express train being timed at an average of 49mph from Peterborough to King’s Cross. In recent times, modern motive power and standard trains consistently produce predictable performances, so SRTs can be consistently applied. The difference between a good driver and a poor one is far less than it once was and I recall Exeter driver Butler’s account of his first diesel trip from Axminster up the 1-in-80 to Honiton tunnel. “I just set the power handle on maximum and felt helpless. In the end, I just wanted to kick it.” There was no room for improvisation.” That is not to say that every train achieves its SRTs. Clearly there are many factors that could go wrong, including equipment failures and trespass. Professional or defensive driving is now the norm. It is called the former – but amounts to the latter – and is now a significant cause of undetected lost time, since it appears that many running times have not been adjusted in line with new techniques. Every year seems to introduce a new reason for losing time. On a Swindon-Kemble run in 2006 we ran all the way at a maximum speed of 60mph, losing 4min on schedule. When I enquired why, I was told it was the day that manual track inspections take place. And the same system was still in force when I last visited
“I just set the power handle on maximum and felt helpless. In the end, I just wanted to kick it.”
Top of page: Four of the runs in this article feature Class 50s. On July 28, 1984, No. 50028 Tiger departs from Newton Abbot during the author’s time as area manager. TRACKS NORTH