Good Practice IV: Analysis of the Relationship between Nodal Delays and Capacity Utilisation delays can be identified in the TRUST datasets as records with the same start and end locations, and can be extracted for locations of interest by selecting the appropriate STANOX codes or, once the appropriate mapping has been done, the corresponding TIPLOCs or location names. Secondary delay records and different causes of delay can similarly be selected; if the focus (as was the case for DITTO Railway Systems) is on congestion-related reactionary delay (CRRD), the following cause codes should be used: YA, YB, YC, YD, YE, YF, YG, YO. An example of the attribution process which emphasises the role of nodes, and particularly stations, in delay propagation is shown by Table 8. Our starting was to use the Capacity Charge Recalibration dataset (2012) used by Arup in work for ORR. This contained 458,000 records of nodal delay – some 26% of the total of over 1.74 million delay incidents. From this dataset, 57,958 records were extracted for the London and North Eastern route which included 755 TIPLOCs. It was found that 146 nodes accounted for over 90% of nodal delays and all these nodes related to passenger station or freight terminals. The top six categories, accounting for 83 nodes and 41,612 delay incidents (over 70% of the route total) are shown overleaf. Table 8: Example of Attribution of Delays to Nodes (See also Armstrong and Preston, 2015) Node Classification No. of Nodes No. of CRRD Incidents Complex, Major Station 11 18,887 Freight Terminal 35 6,847 Complex, Medium Station 10 5,734 Complex, Minor Station 8 5,721 2-track through Station 15 2,393 Terminus 4 2,030 As indicated above, only limited guidelines are available for capacity utilisation calculations at junctions and stations: no formal guidelines are available for the Capacity Utilisation Index (CUI ) approach used in Britain (Gibson et al., 2002), and, while updated UIC 406 provides an outline methodology, it does not include any guidance for capacity utilisation calculations for trains calling (i.e. arriving, stopping and then departing) at stations, or for trains arriving and terminating their journeys, and then going out of service or forming subsequent originating departures.
Good Practice IV: Analysis of the Relationship between Nodal Delays and Capacity Utilisation delays can be identified in the TRUST datasets as records with the same start and end locations, and can be extracted for locations of interest by selecting the appropriate STANOX codes or, once the appropriate mapping has been done, the corresponding TIPLOCs or location names. Secondary delay records and different causes of delay can similarly be selected; if the focus (as was the case for DITTO Railway Systems) is on congestion-related reactionary delay (CRRD), the following cause codes should be used: YA, YB, YC, YD, YE, YF, YG, YO. An example of the attribution process which emphasises the role of nodes, and particularly stations, in delay propagation is shown by Table 8. Our starting was to use the Capacity Charge Recalibration dataset (2012) used by Arup in work for ORR. This contained 458,000 records of nodal delay – some 26% of the total of over 1.74 million delay incidents. From this dataset, 57,958 records were extracted for the London and North Eastern route which included 755 TIPLOCs. It was found that 146 nodes accounted for over 90% of nodal delays and all these nodes related to passenger station or freight terminals. The top six categories, accounting for 83 nodes and 41,612 delay incidents (over 70% of the route total) are shown overleaf. Table 8: Example of Attribution of Delays to Nodes (See also Armstrong and Preston, 2015) Node Classification No. of Nodes No. of CRRD Incidents Complex, Major Station 11 18,887 Freight Terminal 35 6,847 Complex, Medium Station 10 5,734 Complex, Minor Station 8 5,721 2-track through Station 15 2,393 Terminus 4 2,030 As indicated above, only limited guidelines are available for capacity utilisation calculations at junctions and stations: no formal guidelines are available for the Capacity Utilisation Index (CUI ) approach used in Britain (Gibson et al., 2002), and, while updated UIC 406 provides an outline methodology, it does not include any guidance for capacity utilisation calculations for trains calling (i.e. arriving, stopping and then departing) at stations, or for trains arriving and terminating their journeys, and then going out of service or forming subsequent originating departures.
DITTOMilestone10Deliverable42v2.docx