A Tube train can make its station call within 20 seconds at a National Rail station. Why is the dispatch procedure of some other trains so long?

[miklcct]

I feel very impatient when travelling on some trains where the dispatch procedure takes so long that it overruns the train schedule. On last Satuday, I saw so many passengers trying to cramp into a single door on a Voyager at Oxford causing the station call overran in time. Also, the doors of most trains open so slowly, unlike Tube and Overground trains with fast opening and closing. In contrast, a Tube train can complete a station call (from doors opening to closing) within 20 seconds, even at a National Rail station. Why don't all trains be built with lots of doors and operate in the same way like the Tube and Overground does?

 

[Eskimo]

I suppose it depends on the place, the type of traveller (regional / commuter) and the predicted amount of passengers for the route.

The Tube is rapid transport, with most zone 1 stations being destinations / interchanges and the population of the capital and its commuters using it daily.

Long distance trains won’t have nearly the amount of unique riders or frequency of stops so doesn’t need to prioritise entry/exit infrastructure over comfort (more doors = more draught!)

Commuter or suburban heavy rail is a hybrid of both. My train between Lincoln and Leicester was a thirds-length doors train (a turbostar) and made sense with the amount of stops, the unique passengers using it to make connections, but also for passengers like myself travelling a 2 hour stint.

In short: the more stops, the higher the frequency and the more urban centric the service is, the more likely it is to have doors between the doors!

 

[skyhigh]

Why don't all trains be built with lots of doors

Well because on a London - Edinburgh express it would be rather uncomfortable with hardly any seats and lots of doors for a start. The majority of the rail network is nothing like the Underground (or the rail network in China for that matter)...

 

[miklcct]

Well because on a London - Edinburgh express it would be rather uncomfortable with hardly any seats and lots of doors for a start. The majority of the rail network is nothing like the Underground (or the rail network in China for that matter)...

How about a London - Penzance train? It would be rather uncomfortable with a Tube train but the train needs to carry loads of commuters who alight at Reading!

 

[Darandio]

If so many passengers were trying to cram into a single door on a Voyager when there are several others available to use then passenger behaviour is the issue. Building long distance stock with more doors to the detriment of passenger comfort isn't the answer.

 

[Lewlew]

Did the train actually lose time? Dwell times are built into the schedule. It may have left late according to the Passenger Timetable but still been on time according to the Working Timetable or been back on time by the next station.

 

[quantinghome]

Station dwell time is a significant factor for the tube's capacity - some lines have less than two minutes between trains so the difference between a 20 second stop and 30 seconds really counts.

That's not generally the case for the national rail network. In fact, given the complexity of the network it's often necessary to build timing allowances into the timetable to ensure a reliable service. So there's little to no advantage in minimising dwell times.

 

[Starmill]

Dwell time can be improved on long distance trains by having people waiting in the correct areas. At Tamworth for example when there a service to London operated by a Pendolino train, there are no markers for where on the platform to wait for each coach. Furthermore the waiting shelter and stairs are forward of the nose of the train when it arrives on the platform, so the first door into Standard Class is potentially some ~80 metres walk. How is anyone meant to know this? Most London trains from Tamworth aren't Pendolinos.

 

[BJames]

Station dwell time is a significant factor for the tube's capacity - some lines have less than two minutes between trains so the difference between a 20 second stop and 30 seconds really counts.

That's not generally the case for the national rail network. In fact, given the complexity of the network it's often necessary to build timing allowances into the timetable to ensure a reliable service. So there's little to no advantage in minimising dwell times.

Exactly and it's only really something that one might notice on a high-frequency, many stops route. It's a bit annoying to be held for 2 minutes on the Underground - but to be held for 2 minutes at Exeter St Davids, on what is often just the third stop on the way down from London, isn't really a problem. It's about the amount of people that are trying to be moved in huge numbers at high frequency -

Much like a thread from yesterday, the OP appears to be confusing the tube network with national rail...

Dwell time can be improved on long distance trains by having people waiting in the correct areas. At Tamworth for example when there a service to London operated by a Pendolino train, there are no markers for where on the platform to wait for each coach. Furthermore the waiting shelter and stairs are forward of the nose of the train when it arrives on the platform, so the first door into Standard Class is potentially some ~80 metres walk. How is anyone meant to know this?

Having said the above I do agree with this though. I quite like the zone markers at e.g. Grantham and in Cornwall stations, it makes things run far smoother. Now HSTs are gone down south and on MML it's made things a lot quicker too...

 

[miklcct]

It's about the amount of people that are trying to be moved in huge numbers at high frequency -

This is what needed to relieve the overcrowding issue on the commuter lines such as those running between Woking - Waterloo and Brighton - Victoria, which frequently make news heading - by running more trains on the line.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Dwell time can be improved on long distance trains by having people waiting in the correct areas. At Tamworth for example when there a service to London operated by a Pendolino train, there are no markers for where on the platform to wait for each coach. Furthermore the waiting shelter and stairs are forward of the nose of the train when it arrives on the platform, so the first door into Standard Class is potentially some ~80 metres walk. How is anyone meant to know this? Most London trains from Tamworth aren't Pendolinos.

Tamworth doesn't have Pendolino markers as it's not an Avanti station and as you rightly say, most trains to London are LNWR 350s so it would be very rare to have to walk any considerable distance.

I agree with the shelter position and no matter what train arrives, other than morning commuters, they all wait at the bottom of the stairs! But then that happens at all stations on that route regardless of signage or announcements

 

[Horizon22]

You've sort of identified it there - different rolling stock, different type of passengers & attitude and differing timetables

Firstly Tube trains are built with more doors and access built for quick and easy egress. More modern suburban rolling stock (think 345s and 700s) are also now built this way when peak loadings were causing notable decreases in dwell times, but its the exception. Without middle doors, people crowded around the vestibule area, often with luggage which can cause issues. But ultimately changing this would reduce space and reduce passenger comfort so its a trade off. Some doors also do open slower due to design or the dispatch process (reliant on the guard or driver or combination to open the doors).

Secondly, passenger attitude. As you've suggested "everything was trying to cramp into a single door". More people have large luggage and more canny travellers know where the best exit is for them on the National Rail network than they do the Underground. The style of the underground is just "turn up and go" and if that means standing, so be it. The railways - particularly regional and long-distance has aspects such as pre-booked seats, people more unsure and the whole architecture in some places is not built around speedy boarding. This is not to say it cannot be done with platform zone markers, good customer information with graphical markers of where the train will board &

Thirdly, many trains are timetabled to have longer dwells than the underground and have for decades. This of course has built into passenger & staff attitudes.

Fourthly, a range of trains might serve one station or even one platform. This complexity is not something you get on a tube line; there aren't short platforms for a longer train, or a short train occupying a large platform which might lead to passengers unsure of where to stand. If you turn up a tube station if you're on the platform, you will get the train (with a few minor exceptions). This is extra compelexity for the rail passenger, especially one not paying attention to station displays or announcements (if it's even displayed) hence the classic "run up the platform" when a 2-4 car train turns up.

 

[Ken H]

dwell times could be reduced if the driver opens the doors. He knows how long his train is and has stopped at the correct stop mark. So he can start the door opening sequence as the train drops the last few MPH. If its safe on the Berlin S-Bahn, it would be safe here.
And if DOO trains can despatch without the driver why cant guarded trains do that?
Dont get me started at the slowness of the doors opening and closing.

 

[Starmill]

Tamworth doesn't have Pendolino markers as it's not an Avanti station and as you rightly say, most trains to London are LNWR 350s so it would be very rare to have to walk any considerable distance.

I agree with the shelter position and no matter what train arrives, other than morning commuters, they all wait at the bottle of the stairs! But then that happens at all stations on that route regardless of signage or announcements

There's really nothing whatsoever stopping Avanti from paying for a sign to be put up telling people to move along the platform for standard class on their services. The point being made was that even a low-tech, straightforward solution isn't considered worthwhile. In other words dwell time just isn't really that much of an issue in the view of some operators. Similarly to how trains occasionally depart late from Blackpool North because the staff didn't give people enough time to walk from the concourse onto the train. Could easily be solved by just not blocking off the platforms, and yet it's not considered.

Hull Trains paid to have markers installed for example and they don't manage any stations. But of course that's more for customer experience than dwell time, but it still is a help.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

There's really nothing whatsoever stopping Avanti from paying for a sign to be put up telling people to move along the platform for standard class on their services. The point being made was that even a low-tech, straightforward solution isn't considered worthwhile. In other words dwell time just isn't really that much of an issue in the view of some operators. Similarly to how trains occasionally depart late from Blackpool North because the staff didn't give people enough time to walk from the concourse onto the train.

You will probably find that TOCs don't really like having other TOCs signs on their platforms other than timetable related, certainly not on routes I've worked anyway.

Signage is often ignored by casual or lesiure travellers, and commuters or regulars know where to stand and have done without issues for years. The same with which type of passengers stand very close to the edge or don't pay attention to arriving trains!

In my experience there is nothing that will stop people from congregating and slowing dispatch. That's not to say it necessarily delays the train, Tamworth in fact often has a few minutes dwell time in the example used so it's a bugbear not an issue.

 

[seagull]

Don't know about anyone else but I'd find an hour or more on a Tube train extremely uncomfortable, and that's if I was fortunate enough to get one of the few seats. Given that National Rail trains are designed for longer journeys and distances, as well as to carry more passengers "in comfort" (aka seated) per coach, there is no point comparing the two.
All those doors and wide openings and aisles on a Tube or Metro style train come at the expense of seats, simple as that.

 

[The exile]

Where I would agree with the OP is on the length of time it can take for doors to be unlocked and the to be fully open.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Whilst door sequence times depend on stock type one of the biggest anomalies across the mainline network is largely down to who controls the doors of course. On SWR, and other operators, the nonsense that the guard has to get out of the cab and check the platform sticks 5-8secs on dwell time before you start. Contrast that with operators that still retain guards at least giving the driver the control of door release where its 1-2secs. Its also perfectly feasible on a 700 to achieve 20secs with there high speed doors, on board camera systems and well trained drivers. The schedule generally don't demand it but certainly helps when service is perturbated.

 

[PupCuff]

I suppose really the question is why rush if you can maintain a sensible schedule without doing so? It'll only cause stress for people trying to get on, safety risk for the person checking the platform/train interface, less opportunity to spot customers who need assistance, etc.

 

[The exile]

I suppose really the question is why rush if you can maintain a sensible schedule without doing so? It'll only cause stress for people trying to get on, safety risk for the person checking the platform/train interface, less opportunity to spot customers who need assistance, etc.

Agreed, but trapping people on trains while “encouraging” those in the platform to crowd round those doors waiting for the to open - this slowing down egress even more does none of those things.

 

[skyhigh]

How about a London - Penzance train? It would be rather uncomfortable with a Tube train but the train needs to carry loads of commuters who alight at Reading!

Designing a long distance train around the needs of passengers travelling a small proportion of the distance is madness.

 

[bramling]

I feel very impatient when travelling on some trains where the dispatch procedure takes so long that it overruns the train schedule. On last Satuday, I saw so many passengers trying to cramp into a single door on a Voyager at Oxford causing the station call overran in time. Also, the doors of most trains open so slowly, unlike Tube and Overground trains with fast opening and closing. In contrast, a Tube train can complete a station call (from doors opening to closing) within 20 seconds, even at a National Rail station. Why don't all trains be built with lots of doors and operate in the same way like the Tube and Overground does?

It happens on LU largely because the busiest times *tend* to be heavily dominated by regular commuter-type users, who in the main are fairly well organised and know what to do. That said, there's plenty of locations on LU where 20-second dwell times are impossible even with regular users - Bank Northern Line was one such example, there's plenty of others.

Mainline trains used to be just as efficient in slam-door days, something like a VEP could manage to load or unload a massive amount of people in a very quick dwell time, on relative numbers of people this would probably have given LU a run for their money back in the day. Indeed a good proportion of people would be off the train before it had even come to a stand, this practice was essentially standard well into the 1990s and nobody batted an eyelid.

Even if we ignore the safety aspects, I don't think slam-door trains would work nowadays. Slam-door HSTs were absolutely painful in their last days, especially when on frequent-stop work like in Cornwall - mainly due to people failing to close the doors behind them, which requires a level of spatial awareness many people nowadays seem to lack. LU isn't all milk and honey either, things aren't as slick nowadays as they were in the days of guards, where it was standard practice to have the doors opening the instant the train stopped (if not sooner), and closed again at the earliest possible moment.

The mainline transitioned to sliding doors mainly at a time when passenger numbers were comparatively low, and things have largely remained the same ever since, despite passenger numbers increasing massively. This is probably the answer to the question.

 

[ComUtoR]

He knows how long his train is and has stopped at the correct stop mark.

How many times a year does a train stop short ?

And if DOO trains can despatch without the driver why cant guarded trains do that?

How does a DOO train dispatch without the Driver ? Who is opening and closing the doors ?

 

[Ken H]

How many times a year does a train stop short ?



How does a DOO train dispatch without the Driver ? Who is opening and closing the doors ?

Sorry. Without guard. Been a long day...

 

[Lewlew]

He knows how long his train is and has stopped at the correct stop mark. So he can start the door opening sequence as the train drops the last few MPH.

Not all drivers are male.

 

[Starmill]

You will probably find that TOCs don't really like having other TOCs signs on their platforms other than timetable related, certainly not on routes I've worked anyway.

It's relatively common. Indeed it's often a requirement to put third party posters into the poster cases.

Signage is often ignored by casual or lesiure travellers, and commuters or regulars know where to stand and have done without issues for years.

Signage is often ignored, so we shouldn't have any signage?

The point being made was that, in the general case, signage can be used to reduce the time taken for station work, although to be really effective it also generally needs platform staff to act in very particular ways.

The point is that even the cheapest and easiest measures to reduce dwell times generally aren't attempted except for reactively in response to some bad performance, such as painting red lines at Manchester Piccadilly. The OP asks why some trains have very slow station work procedures. The answer is because nobody is prepared to argue they should be any quicker. The same is true for making the guard step onto the platform before doors can be released. It's a requirement some places and not others. Correct Side Door Enable is a very good solution which can buy back lots of seconds, but it's expensive. But just not mandating the guard to step off the train is free.

 

[Ted633]

It happens on LU largely because the busiest times *tend* to be heavily dominated by regular commuter-type users, who in the main are fairly well organised and know what to do. That said, there's plenty of locations on LU where 20-second dwell times are impossible even with regular users - Bank Northern Line was one such example, there's plenty of others.

Mainline trains used to be just as efficient in slam-door days, something like a VEP could manage to load or unload a massive amount of people in a very quick dwell time, on relative numbers of people this would probably have given LU a run for their money back in the day. Indeed a good proportion of people would be off the train before it had even come to a stand, this practice was essentially standard well into the 1990s and nobody batted an eyelid.

Even if we ignore the safety aspects, I don't think slam-door trains would work nowadays. Slam-door HSTs were absolutely painful in their last days, especially when on frequent-stop work like in Cornwall - mainly due to people failing to close the doors behind them, which requires a level of spatial awareness many people nowadays seem to lack. LU isn't all milk and honey either, things aren't as slick nowadays as they were in the days of guards, where it was standard practice to have the doors opening the instant the train stopped (if not sooner), and closed again at the earliest possible moment.

The mainline transitioned to sliding doors mainly at a time when passenger numbers were comparatively low, and things have largely remained the same ever since, despite passenger numbers increasing massively. This is probably the answer to the question.

Bit off topic, but regarding slam doors working today, they would still work (again, ignoring H&S) if they were in widespread use. The issue you identified with the last days of the HST slam doors is simply because people aren't familiar anymore. Case in point for me, I travelled on the Swanage railway last spring and on alighting there was a middle aged man in front of me and didn't know how to open the door! (No internal latch). I hung back afterwards as well to shut all the doors that people had been left open (told my partner I was helping out, but in reality I just miss slamming the doors!)

 

[cambsy]

I have seen, and been on trains, where there as been a minute or under stop, when train running late etc, though this seems to be on shorter 5 car or less train. So would say that the longer the train, longer it takes to dispatch, and also down to the time, between the ding ding for ready to leave, and when the doors actually shut.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well because on a London - Edinburgh express it would be rather uncomfortable with hardly any seats and lots of doors for a start. The majority of the rail network is nothing like the Underground (or the rail network in China for that matter)...

When this latest “great idea” gets shot down there’ll probably be a proposal next month to run intercity stock on the tube...

 

[Watershed]

The real reason is that on the Tube, everything is geared around short dwells, maximum throughput and lowest possible headway. LU have just about perfected this - both in terms of the rolling stock they use, how they train drivers and so forth.

By comparison, on most National Rail services, and particularly non-metro operators, those considerations aren't as important. Operating methods are designed, and train procurement undertaken, with little or no consideration of the performance impacts.

There's a lot of potential 'quick wins' going to waste, and a pervasive attitude of "this is how it's always been done" in many quarters. But such sloppiness is simply tolerated because there is effectively no incentive to challenge it.