Connection nonsenses

[Taunton]

In general circulation today is this piece by Simon Calder (who I understand visits here) on just-missed connections at Oxenholme, where the Avanti from London etc arrives, just as the Northern to Windermere, been sat there for the longest time, slams its doors and trundles off to Windermere. Probably empty, for there aren't a lot of originating passengers in the People's Republic of Oxenholme. Essentially it's a change point. In The Independent here:

MSN

As the Avanti West Coast express glides to a halt at platform 2 of Oxenholme station in Cumbria, the doors of the Northern all-stations train to Windermere on the adjacent platform 3 close, in perfect synchronicity.

Oxenholme, if you do not know it, is the rail junction where the spur to England’s largest lake leaves the West Coast Main Line. Many passengers alighting from the express are keen to leave the main line, too, and head for Windermere.

It should involve an easy 10-second walk. But with imperfect timing, from the passengers’ point of view, just as the doors on their arriving train open, the diesel of the Northern departure roars into life and leaves the traveller cursing its red tail-lights.

Now my own experience (RailUKforums, in passing) has been exactly the same at Ascot, trying to get to Camberley. I gave up and started driving, instead, right across London and down the A316, because of the stupidities of sending the connecting train off from Ascot the moment we pulled in. One of the posters here even identified one guard who thought this was "funny- haha". On one occasion we waited in the cold for however long, only to notice exactly the same being done to those from the next connection, as we set off.

And the general consensus of the users on here is "we have to depart on the nose because of delaying anyone further down the line". OK, though it's not apparent why those passengers are 'more important' than those left at the junction. And apart from the fact that there's probably nobody down the line anyway from Oxenholme (or Ascot) to be so inconvenienced, one wonders why that attitude is not taken for the incoming main line service. Because if it was, it would arrive on time. But it doesn't. The railway bubble finds it fine to delay the main train for their own purposes, but just not for passengers. Twice into Ascot we were 10 minutes late because NR had parked one of their own work trains on the fast line between Clapham and Barnes, so we were stuck behind the stopper. Apparently fine, because the Reading train manages to get in to final destination within the allowance.

 

[plugwash]

There is a age-old problem that if an organisation adopts performance metrics and puts in place incentives to meet those metrics, that people will adopt work habits that maximise the performance metric, even if those work habits are actually detrimental to the organisation and it's customers. This goes double when the metrics are not just internal to an organisation, but form part of a contract between the organisation and another.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Does seem slightly strange that the 1021 Oxenholme -> Windermere (Northern) service seems to have a somewhat longer turnaround time upon arrival at Windermere, compared with other Oxenholme -> Windermere shuttles that don't come off the WCML.

Anything to do with the service in question having originated from Manchester Airport? If not, why couldn't it have a longer dwell time at Oxenholme to connect with the Avanti service originating from London Euston which runs just behind the Northern service?

On arrival at Windermere at 1041, the Northern service in question then forms the 1057 shuttle back to Oxenholme.

 

[Halish Railway]

I think that this is an example of a train that has been held for a few minutes so that passengers on the delayed Manchester Airport to Glasgow train can make the connection to Windermere.

That Oxenholme to Windermere train can’t hang around for too long given that it has less than 10 minutes to turnaround and head to Manchester Airport, which really should run on time given the number of conflicts en route.

Really the panacea would be 2tph Oxenholme to Windermere, meaning that if you miss your connection, you only have to wait for 30 minutes, rather than 60.

 

[zwk500]

Really the panacea would be 2tph Oxenholme to Windermere, meaning that if you miss your connection, you only have to wait for 30 minutes, rather than 60.

The ideal would be to time trains for sensible connections and then make the trains run on time. If there's only 1tph an hour you're connecting with, it doesn't make sense to run 2tph just to be able to 'shotgun' the connection.

Sadly, connections between services tend to be the last thing on the list in planning departments (a few notable examples like the GW Thames Valley branches aside) and therefore often simple opportunities get missed. The problem is that employing and retaining skilled train planning staff is getting harder by the moment for NR and TOCs because of DfT financial policy.

 

[ivorytoast28]

It depends where. In many places on the continent local trains will wait but those branch lines are truly independant of the wider system and often have a lot of small stops en route where dwell time means they catch up. Certainly, I think the Windermere shuttle should be entirely separate and operate on its own rather than having the longer connections, if it is 1tph it then can afford to wait a bit longer at the Oxenholme end when needed as it's only a 20 minute journey each way. As for the Ascot line, this does have to intteract at Aldershot with both Alton - waterloo and Guildford - farnham services so it can't be held. On most of the UK network this is the case, we don't have many truly independant branch lines

 

[JamesT]

The ideal would be to time trains for sensible connections and then make the trains run on time. If there's only 1tph an hour you're connecting with, it doesn't make sense to run 2tph just to be able to 'shotgun' the connection.

Sadly, connections between services tend to be the last thing on the list in planning departments (a few notable examples like the GW Thames Valley branches aside) and therefore often simple opportunities get missed. The problem is that employing and retaining skilled train planning staff is getting harder by the moment for NR and TOCs because of DfT financial policy.

Of course, the first question has to be connecting in which direction? If you're timing for mainline -> branch, doesn't that make the timing poor for branch -> mainline?

 

[zwk500]

Of course, the first question has to be connecting in which direction? If you're timing for mainline -> branch, doesn't that make the timing poor for branch -> mainline?

Depends what journeys you're planning for. At Ascot and to a lesser extent Oxenholme, most traffic will be heading in one direction. So it depends how close the Up you're connecting into and the Down you're connecting off of are timed to call at the junction.

 

[chris_in_salop]

Quite an interesting event in Shrewsbury this evening.

There is often a set swap on the TfW Birmingham to Aberystwyth service, although it is advertised as a through service. Tonight the onward portion of IJ23 departed Shrewsbury 15 minutes before the (delayed) portion from Birmingham arrived at Shrewsbury.

As the tannoy at Shrewsbury announced, the delay was caused by a trespass event in Telford. So the railway is entirely justified in feeling aggrieved that the general public has, yet again, fallen short. But making through passengers wait 2 hours for the next train does seem to be quite a harsh collective punishment.

 

[Horizon22]

Companies need more formal connectional policies.

At big interchanges, it is indeed more difficult to hold. But where it is a branch line with decent turn-around times and plays a major part to only shuttle to the larger station, some sort of "hold for X minutes" should be agreed. I know some TOCs are better than this than others - GWR are OK in Devon and Cornwall. But fragmentation of different TOCs can't have helped this issue.

 

[30907]

Anything to do with the service in question having originated from Manchester Airport? If not, why couldn't it have a longer dwell time at Oxenholme to connect with the Avanti service originating from London Euston which runs just behind the Northern service?

The connection from Euston in this case is at Lancaster - the 10.21 arrival is via Birmingham,and I suspect the least important of the 3 flows. I doubt if many West Mids passengers are put off their short break in the Lakes by having to use the next service 2 hours later.

Quite an interesting event in Shrewsbury this evening.

There is often a set swap on the TfW Birmingham to Aberystwyth service, although it is advertised as a through service. Tonight the onward portion of IJ23 departed Shrewsbury 15 minutes before the (delayed) portion from Birmingham arrived at Shrewsbury.

RTT suggests the Birmingham train was +29 - which would have been +35 from Newtown with knock-on effects all evening and right through to Pwllheli. The problems of a rationalised railway

 

[Llandudno]

Another strange occurrence last night, Thursday 4 May

2002 EMR Service from London due in Derby at 2131 offers an advertised connection into the EMR 2137 service to Matlock.

The train from London was running 7 minutes late and arrived into Derby at 2138.
The 2137 train to Derby left on time, one minute before the slightly late London train arrived at Derby.

Then the Matlock train gets held at a signal for 5 minutes before it even reaches its first calling point, Duffield….to allow the late running London-Sheffield train to pass!

The upshot is that anyone travelling from London to Belper and Matlock etc would have to wait an hour at Derby station for the next Matlock train.

I guess the amount claimed via delay repay would more than ccover a couple of pints in the Brunswick.

Every cloud…!

 

[30907]

Another strange occurrence last night, Thursday 4 May

2002 EMR Service from London due in Derby at 2131 offers an advertised connection into the EMR 2137 service to Matlock.

The train from London was running 7 minutes late and arrived into Derby at 2138.
The 2137 train to Derby left on time, one minute before the slightly late London train arrived at Derby.

Then the Matlock train gets held at a signal for 5 minutes before it even reaches its first calling point, Duffield….to allow the late running London-Sheffield train to pass!

Looks a poor call there, as holding the Matlock would have caused no further delay.

 

[43066]

I guess the amount claimed via delay repay would more than ccover a couple of pints in the Brunswick.

That’s the way to look at it .

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The connection from Euston in this case is at Lancaster - the 10.21 arrival is via Birmingham,and I suspect the least important of the 3 flows. I doubt if many West Mids passengers are put off their short break in the Lakes by having to use the next service 2 hours later.

Good point, well made, although normally you'd almost always expect to change for Windermere at Oxenholme.

Are you going to tell Simon Calder?

 

[Spartacus]

Good point, well made, although normally you'd almost always expect to change for Windermere at Oxenholme.

Are you going to tell Simon Calder?

Yes, he seems to have overlooked that there's a perfectly good, later service from Euston that makes a perfectly good connection with the Windermere train at Lancaster. That service to Edinburgh has a stop at Oxenholme so people can get from Windermere to Edinburgh, not from the West Midlands to Windermere.

The trouble with most of these 'this connection doesn't make' things is that people only see their own train, nobody else's that does make, or that in this instance if you held the Windermere for the West Midlands service it'd then be very close to the TPE service to Glasgow, then you'd have people on there saying 'why couldn't it be held?', then passengers from Edinburgh, then you've totally lost your turnaround at Windermere and then some. Delay that and the return no longer connects with either the Euston or Edinburgh trains at Oxenholme, so people would be complaining then too.

I wonder if the extra time at Windermere between 1C70 and 2C07 is perhaps to allow the crew a short break, having spent the previous 2hrs 12mins working in from the airport without one?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Windermere very often is held in my experience, though if it'll miss its path on the WCML there are limits.

 

[Spartacus]

Looks a poor call there, as holding the Matlock would have caused no further delay.

I'm not totally up on the regulation policy there, but the problem with holding a Matlock at Derby is that they're usually chased down by something by Ambergate Jn. Hold it at Breadsall instead and you're nearly three miles closer to the junction, and perhaps 3 minutes less delay to the one behind.

The Windermere very often is held in my experience, though if it'll miss its path on the WCML there are limits.

Holding for a booked connection's fine but in this case it's not about holding a booked connection, it's about altering the timetable to create a connection where one doesn't currently exist.

 

[Class 170101]

The ideal would be to time trains for sensible connections and then make the trains run on time. If there's only 1tph an hour you're connecting with, it doesn't make sense to run 2tph just to be able to 'shotgun' the connection.

Indeed the Windermere example looks impossible to run 2tph as the single line has about a 20 minute journey time in each direction thus a 40 minute round trip.

Sadly, connections between services tend to be the last thing on the list in planning departments (a few notable examples like the GW Thames Valley branches aside) and therefore often simple opportunities get missed.

The weakness tends to be connections between operators rather than connecting between their own trains simply because each operator doesn't know what the other is doing and indeed isn't really meant to know - the idea of privatisation to induce competition.

The problem is that employing and retaining skilled train planning staff is getting harder by the moment for NR and TOCs because of DfT financial policy.

Whilst this doesn't help its the lack of understanding of what this part of the business actually does and the impact of many other areas of the business and the wider railway at large.

 

[DerekC]

The weakness tends to be connections between operators rather than connecting between their own trains simply because each operator doesn't know what the other is doing and indeed isn't really meant to know - the idea of privatisation to induce competition.

Isn't that part of GBR's mission, to eliminate the negative aspects of privatisation?

 

[30907]

The weakness tends to be connections between operators rather than connecting between their own trains simply because each operator doesn't know what the other is doing and indeed isn't really meant to know - the idea of privatisation to induce competition.

Interestingly, the examples we have had are two within the same TOC and one (the original) where the timetable provides good connections but not every possible connection.

Whilst this doesn't help its the lack of understanding of what this part of the business actually does and the impact of many other areas of the business and the wider railway at large.

Agree.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed the Windermere example looks impossible to run 2tph as the single line has about a 20 minute journey time in each direction thus a 40 minute round trip.

Yes, not helped by the Windermere branch having a mix of shuttles and through services.

The weakness tends to be connections between operators rather than connecting between their own trains simply because each operator doesn't know what the other is doing and indeed isn't really meant to know - the idea of privatisation to induce competition.

There's no reason that cooperation can't be run where no competition is possible, although most complaints I have seen are about same-TOC connections.

Whilst this doesn't help its the lack of understanding of what this part of the business actually does and the impact of many other areas of the business and the wider railway at large.

This is very true.

Isn't that part of GBR's mission, to eliminate the negative aspects of privatisation?

I though GBR's mission was to generate a large amount of smoke and wave some mirrors about while shouting loudly 'PLEASE DON'T CALL US BRITISH RAIL'.

 

[Smod]

This is I'm sure a complex issue but I assume that day-to-day decisions are often made on the basis of "do not delay at any costs" for fear of triggering Delay Repay and appearing bad in the statistics that DaFT look at.

A while ago the South West main line was shut for engineering, and a shuttle service was operating between Weybridge and Waterloo. The rail replacement bus I travelled on was a few minutes late. Realising this, I moved swiftly to the train - and was the only person from the bus to catch the train. Most were on the platform or on the stairs when the train left, and were left with a 30 minute wait. A few minutes later the train arrived at Surbiton where it was I believe scheduled to stand for a few minutes.

I assume that signallers are making judgements all the time in the interest of delivering the best available options for passengers - and of course for freight. It's sad that in some cases (such as the one above) rail professionals nowadays seem to be discouraged by the system from making sensible judgements, and passengers may lose out. (And I appreciate that some cases are not as clear-cut as my example).

 

[Deepgreen]

The traditional concept of connections has all-but-disappeared from the railway's ethos, and has been replaced by trains' (allegedly) timekeeping rather than passengers', where a change is required. I used to suffer this torment when commuting from Betchworth via Redhill, when a few seconds' leeway would have allowed cross-platform interchanges to be acheived with no onward impacts, but the rigid instructions to platform staff meant commonsense was banished. It wears very thin with passengers when they are told that every second counts on the railway as it is essential that everything runs on time, but they miss their infrequent connection because of...a late train.

 

[LowLevel]

The Matlock one is odd. Up until very recently you'd be held for maybe 3 or 4 minutes to connect if need be and the Sheffield would go first. Recently I've had the box giving us the road to go with the Sheffield pretty much hitting the platform, even if the platform staff haven't hit the train ready to start for the Matlock train.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The weakness tends to be connections between operators rather than connecting between their own trains simply because each operator doesn't know what the other is doing and indeed isn't really meant to know - the idea of privatisation to induce competition.

But they arew not competitors - they are partners in providing the service that has been paid for. From the customer's point of view, they have bought a service from one of the TOCs - Avanti for example - but part of that service is provided by another TOC - Northern. But that should not absolve the responsibility of the main contractor to get the customer to their destination at more or less the time advertised - which is what keeping to the timetable should mean - if I leave Euston at X time I can expect to get to Windermere at Y time (I would not pay a pizza delivery man if he arrived on time but without my pizza, so why should a railway not be penalised for arriving on time but without the people who should have been on it?).

If a connection fails, it is because either the main contractor or the subcontractor has fallen down on the job, but eigher way, my contract is with the main contractor, and it is responsible to the customer for any failure by its subcontractor. So in the example above, if I bought my ticket from Avanti, the fact that the last few miles of the journey to Windermere is with another operator shpould be irrelevant - it is up to them to ensure Northern maintain connections at Oxenholme for Windermere, and on the return journey to ensure that, notwithstanding any lateness by the subcontractor, to ensure connections are honoured.

Slamming doors in the faces of connecting passengers, as has happened to me at Newark in particular, is totally unacceptable. We are not to blame for the lateness of the connecting train, so should not be punished for it. I bought a service from LNER/East Coast/GNER, but if the first part of that service (about 10% by distance) was provided by East Midland that doesn't mean the company from which I bought the service should be absolved of the responsibility for ensuring it is provided, or pretend it is nothing to do with them if it isn't.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Slamming doors in the faces of connecting passengers, as has happened to me at Newark in particular, is totally unacceptable. We are not to blame for the lateness of the connecting train, so should not be punished for it. I bought a service from LNER/East Coast/GNER, but if the first part of that service (about 10% by distance) was provided by East Midland that doesn't mean the company from which I bought the service should be absolved of the responsibility for ensuring it is provided, or pretend it is nothing to do with them if it isn't.

Doesn't Delay Repay deal with this (to a considerable, if not complete extent)?

E.g. East Midland leave Lincoln late and get to Newark Northgate late, just in time to see a 'connection' pull out. Say that the delay for London is one hour. Passenger gets a full refund but still gets to London.

East Midland have to pay out many more times than their tiny share of the ticket price and are strongly incentivised to make sure that their train isn't late next time.

The former Station Manager in me keeps coming back to the fact that you can never actually hold a connection 'for a few seconds'. The issue isn't the Olympic sprinter wearing trainers who's waiting at the door immediately opposite where they want to join the second train (or by the stairs, etc.). It's the confused foreigner who has never made the trip before, has mobility problems and heavy luggage and is last to alight the inbound service, at the opposite end of the platform to where they need to be.

 

[Watershed]

But they arew not competitors - they are partners in providing the service that has been paid for. From the customer's point of view, they have bought a service from one of the TOCs - Avanti for example - but part of that service is provided by another TOC - Northern. But that should not absolve the responsibility of the main contractor to get the customer to their destination at more or less the time advertised - which is what keeping to the timetable should mean - if I leave Euston at X time I can expect to get to Windermere at Y time (I would not pay a pizza delivery man if he arrived on time but without my pizza, so why should a railway not be penalised for arriving on time but without the people who should have been on it?).

If a connection fails, it is because either the main contractor or the subcontractor has fallen down on the job, but eigher way, my contract is with the main contractor, and it is responsible to the customer for any failure by its subcontractor. So in the example above, if I bought my ticket from Avanti, the fact that the last few miles of the journey to Windermere is with another operator shpould be irrelevant - it is up to them to ensure Northern maintain connections at Oxenholme for Windermere, and on the return journey to ensure that, notwithstanding any lateness by the subcontractor, to ensure connections are honoured.

Slamming doors in the faces of connecting passengers, as has happened to me at Newark in particular, is totally unacceptable. We are not to blame for the lateness of the connecting train, so should not be punished for it. I bought a service from LNER/East Coast/GNER, but if the first part of that service (about 10% by distance) was provided by East Midland that doesn't mean the company from which I bought the service should be absolved of the responsibility for ensuring it is provided, or pretend it is nothing to do with them if it isn't.

The railway doesn't work like that with contractors and subcontractors. You have one contract with all of the Train Companies, and in fact that reflects how most members of the public see things anyway - they see most National Rail operators as part of one public service, namely the railway.

However, your point remains true. As far as the passenger is concerned, it's no good the railway conducting an internal blame game, when all they care about is the fact that they've been delayed because of the narrow-minded insistence on minimising delays to trains, rather than overall delays to passengers.

Doesn't Delay Repay deal with this (to a considerable, if not complete extent)?

E.g. East Midland leave Lincoln late and get to Newark Northgate late, just in time to see a 'connection' pull out. Say that the delay for London is one hour. Passenger gets a full refund but still gets to London.

East Midland have to pay out many more times than their tiny share of the ticket price and are strongly incentivised to make sure that their train isn't late next time.

The former Station Manager in me keeps coming back to the fact that you can never actually hold a connection 'for a few seconds'. The issue isn't the Olympic sprinter wearing trainers who's waiting at the door immediately opposite where they want to join the second train (or by the stairs, etc.). It's the confused foreigner who has never made the trip before, has mobility problems and heavy luggage and is last to alight the inbound service, at the opposite end of the platform to where they need to be.

Not really. Most people never bother to claim Delay Repay, many claims are wrongly rejected, and even those few claims which are made and accepted tend to be treated as "the cost of doing business" rather than an indication of failing the customer.

There's no one person or team with responsibility and authority to deal with customers' experience from the start to the end of their interaction with the railway.

And if connections have to be held for a few extra minutes - so be it. That's effectively just a reactionary delay from the first train's delay. Of course the tendency is always to try and avoid reactionary delays continuing, but sometimes it's unavoidable. A well-designed timetable (including resource plans) should have enough sufficient slack for such delays to be caught up.

At the end of the delay, the railway doesn't exist to play trains. It exists to move passengers (and, to a small extent, freight) and neither of these types of customers could care less about the individual delays to services. They care about the delay to their journey.

 

[zwk500]

Doesn't Delay Repay deal with this (to a considerable, if not complete extent)?

Delay repayment doesn't come close to compensating you for the time you should have had to yourself. It is a gesture, nothing more.

 

[railfan99]

It depends where. In many places on the continent local trains will wait but those branch lines are truly independant of the wider system and often have a lot of small stops en route where dwell time means they catch up. Certainly, I think the Windermere shuttle should be entirely separate and operate on its own rather than having the longer connections, if it is 1tph it then can afford to wait a bit longer at the Oxenholme end when needed as it's only a 20 minute journey each way.

They 'may wait', but in some European nations, connections can often have long waiting times.

France is one example. Worse than the UK.