Lack of consideration to passengers with tight connections

bb21 said:

The instance at Newport being described upthread is a classic case of uncoordinated and poor communication leading to a poor show despite very good intentions.

Click to expand...

I think improved communication is really the key even if you change nothing operationally. Yesterday evening the 1813 TPE from Edinburgh was running 25 minutes late, possibly jeopardising the connection at Lancaster onto the VT Glasgow-Euston. The guard checked it was behind us (which I'd already worked out from RTT) and suggested changing at Carlisle instead as there was a chance it would be brought into the other platform and allowed to overtake (though in practice it wasn't). The only thing technically wrong with that was that I had an Advance (and so the authority should have been given in writing per my opinion in other posts), though in the circumstances I was willing to take the chance of having to cough up a Carlisle-Lancaster single (not a huge sum of money) and raise merry hell with VT Customer Services to get it back. He also checked some other connections and announced them.

The VT guard also announced the platform and time for Northampton just before MKC.

I think it's all getting better - but doing it even better than it is wouldn't take much.

bb21 said:

I disagree with the assertion that it is poor customer service to rush people towards their required connection. There are times when this is not appropriate, however there is always a dynamic risk assessment involved. Most passengers intended for that connection would have appreciated loud and clear instructions being given at the interchange station as soon as they stepped onto the platform given the shortened connection time. Station staff do not make such announcements because they fancy shouting at people, feel superior, or enjoy watching people run for an impossible connection.

Click to expand...

There is a considerable difference between rushing people towards a connection via loud and clear instructions (although I would prefer "guidance" or "advice") and shouting at people in an unhelpful manner.

I do not know exactly what happened at Newport as I was not there, but in the case I witnessed the shouting was of the "hurry up" "get a move on" variety which suggested (to me at least) that the staff considered the passengers to be at fault in some way. The fact that this shouting was done whilst the PA was simultaneously telling people to "take extra care today as surfaces may be slippery" made the 'service' even poorer in my view.

sheff1 said:

There is a considerable difference between rushing people towards a connection via loud and clear instructions (although I would prefer "guidance" or "advice") and shouting at people in an unhelpful manner.

I do not know exactly what happened at Newport as I was not there, but in the case I witnessed the shouting was of the "hurry up" "get a move on" variety which suggested (to me at least) that the staff considered the passengers to be at fault in some way. The fact that this shouting was done whilst the PA was simultaneously telling people to "take extra care today as surfaces may be slippery" made the 'service' even poorer in my view.

Click to expand...

Yes, when put like that, I broadly agree.

Whilst a connection time of 5 minutes sounds enough at the smaller and simpler stations, it can be less in practice, even without any reported late running.
Actual arrival times are IIRC rounded to the nearest minute and are when the wheels stop turning.
So a booked arrival of 13-10 could in fact be 13-10 and 28 seconds. The releasing and opening of the doors could take 32 seconds, so the actual time at which one may alight is 13-11, a minute after the recorded time of arrival.
Then consider that the doors of the train that one wishes to board may be closed up to 60 seconds before departure, so that the last moment of boarding the 13-15 departure is in fact 13-14.

So what sounds like a 5 minute connection is actually 3 minutes, or 40% less time than expected.

bb21 said:

The instance at Newport being described upthread is a classic case of uncoordinated and poor communication leading to a poor show despite very good intentions.

I disagree with the assertion that it is poor customer service to rush people towards their required connection. There are times when this is not appropriate, however there is always a dynamic risk assessment involved. Most passengers intended for that connection would have appreciated loud and clear instructions being given at the interchange station as soon as they stepped onto the platform given the shortened connection time. Station staff do not make such announcements because they fancy shouting at people, feel superior, or enjoy watching people run for an impossible connection. Had people been directed towards the waiting room as you suggested, I would bet the majority would have loudly complained about the fact that they were prevented from attempting a connection they may or may not have made.

What indisputably let the passengers down on this occasion was communication. Having been given the instruction to rush for their connection, it is a poor show that the connecting service did not wait sufficiently long for at least some of the passengers, or most preferably all of the connecting passengers, to catch it. In hindsight, it would have been better in this instance for such instructions to have not been given.
.

Click to expand...

Its likely the departing train left from platform 4, at Newport this is a self-dispatch platform, there are no platform staff present to hold or dispatch services.
There is a possibility the if the barrier staff were present on that occasion they may have requested the train manager to wait for passengers to make their way across the bridge and that request was refused. There is absolutely nothing the Newport staff could have done about this, except take the grief from those that had missed their train

There used to be a situation at Newport prior to the re-signalling and station layout alterations in 2010 when a Westbound train. usually Manchester to Milford Haven or similar, was re-platformed from 2 to 1 but the automatic announcement was often triggered only when the train was actually running in. Passengers were still hurrying over the footbridge from Platform 2 to Platform 1, self-dispatch, when the train would pull out. The majority of people were also inconvenienced by the fact the announcement was made in Welsh before the English, so delaying their crossing. ATW were complained to but refused to reverse the order of the language and although a Welsh speaker myself, a little common sense would not have gone amiss unless they were feeling under pressure from Welsh language groups. On completion of the alterations, the order was reversed.

broadgage said:

Whilst a connection time of 5 minutes sounds enough at the smaller and simpler stations, it can be less in practice, even without any reported late running.
Actual arrival times are IIRC rounded to the nearest minute and are when the wheels stop turning.
So a booked arrival of 13-10 could in fact be 13-10 and 28 seconds. The releasing and opening of the doors could take 32 seconds, so the actual time at which one may alight is 13-11, a minute after the recorded time of arrival.
Then consider that the doors of the train that one wishes to board may be closed up to 60 seconds before departure, so that the last moment of boarding the 13-15 departure is in fact 13-14.

So what sounds like a 5 minute connection is actually 3 minutes, or 40% less time than expected.

Click to expand...

Are public arrival times ever earlier than working arrival times? My understanding was that a working arrival time on a half minute was always as a minimum rounded up to the next minute in the public book, and some working arrival times are shown even later. Similarly departure times are rounded to the minute before or shown even earlier.

PointsWest said:

Its likely the departing train left from platform 4, at Newport this is a self-dispatch platform, there are no platform staff present to hold or dispatch services.
There is a possibility the if the barrier staff were present on that occasion they may have requested the train manager to wait for passengers to make their way across the bridge and that request was refused. There is absolutely nothing the Newport staff could have done about this, except take the grief from those that had missed their train

Click to expand...

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. As I said earlier, in hindsight it perhaps would have been better to not have directed the customers on this occasion, as the way things panned out it looks absolutely awful. From a procedural point of view, this is not entirely unforeseeable, especially if the platform/service in question as you say is self-dispatch.

Perhaps the solution is not to make these announcements without ensuring that at least some of the faster passengers could catch it. I don't have the answer I'm afraid. Unfortunately sometimes it is best to say nothing at all and allow the customers to work things out themselves. As I said, good intentions from staff I'm sure, but it didn't turn out very well, such is life sometimes.

bb21 said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. As I said earlier, in hindsight it perhaps would have been better to not have directed the customers on this occasion, as the way things panned out it looks absolutely awful. From a procedural point of view, this is not entirely unforeseeable, especially if the platform/service in question as you say is self-dispatch.

Perhaps the solution is not to make these announcements without ensuring that at least some of the faster passengers could catch it. I don't have the answer I'm afraid. Unfortunately sometimes it is best to say nothing at all and allow the customers to work things out themselves. As I said, good intentions from staff I'm sure, but it didn't turn out very well, such is life sometimes.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with you.
From my own experience we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

PHILIPE said:

There used to be a situation at Newport prior to the re-signalling and station layout alterations in 2010 when a Westbound train. usually Manchester to Milford Haven or similar, was re-platformed from 2 to 1 but the automatic announcement was often triggered only when the train was actually running in. Passengers were still hurrying over the footbridge from Platform 2 to Platform 1, self-dispatch, when the train would pull out. The majority of people were also inconvenienced by the fact the announcement was made in Welsh before the English, so delaying their crossing. ATW were complained to but refused to reverse the order of the language and although a Welsh speaker myself, a little common sense would not have gone amiss unless they were feeling under pressure from Welsh language groups. On completion of the alterations, the order was reversed.

Click to expand...

This will be slightly off topic but....

The order was reversed for the 2010 Ryder Cup, as it was recognised that the majority of people travelling through Newport for the tournament wouldn't be speaking Welsh, so having the English first was more sensible. 8 years on and they've never changed it back. Welsh language pressure from the WAG and other parties is why every other station that is bilingual has the Welsh first.

As much as I support the Welsh language, we have to recognise it is nowhere near being the most common language in Wales. From a practical point of view, English needs to come first, apart from the very small handful of places in Wales where you could consider it to be the first language. Especially in Cardiff where a large proportion of travel is cross-border and many of the non-Welsh passengers (and indeed many of the Welsh ones) don't want or need to hear the Welsh first. There are a few trains (such as Manchester Milfords with large stopping patterns) where the train departs before the English announcement has started....

Bletchleyite said:

It's not just about fitness, it's about safety. People legging it around stations so they don't miss their connections (many of whom probably think they have to buy a new ticket if they miss it when their inbound was a bit late) is not a safe thing to have going on.

Click to expand...

It would be useful to know how many people have to run for a train.
There can't be a huge amount in reality.

Yes, rubbish if there's only one train an hour but people are people and catching the train is more important than their own safety.

whhistle said:

Yes, rubbish if there's only one train an hour but people are people and catching the train is more important than their own safety.

Click to expand...

Or more important than the safety of the person they knock down the stairs or onto the track. (My personal view is for organisations not to put themselves out to protect people from their own idiocy).

AlterEgo said:

I expect staff wrongly encourage people to run so they make their connection and are not delayed.

There is a massive misconception amounting to a paranoia on this forum about Delay Repay. People think the railway cares massively about this. It barely costs them anything. In the majority of cases they claim it anyway from the delay “causer”, and even if they don’t, it’s a total pittance compared to internal disincentives within the delay attribution scheme.

There have been even reports on this forum that people stuck on massively delayed trains refuse to fill in the Code Red form capturing customer details. It’s pure paranoia; these forms are to make sure you not only get Delay Repay but also a personalised apology and enhanced compensation, such as a complimentary journey, a cheque, or something else.

The vast majority of Delay Repay claims are for very small amounts.

It’s literally not a part, in any way, of any thought process when deciding which trains to run, or cancel, or whatever.

Click to expand...

Yet some TOC's still manage to be remarkably parsimonious about handing out delay repay.

yorksrob said:

Yet some TOC's still manage to be remarkably parsimonious about handing out delay repay.

Click to expand...

Incompetence, not malice.

Local connections at Nottingham are appalling, bordering on offensive, since they all leave from the far end platform. You have to run to the central footbridge and back down along the platform to get to, say, platform 4B from platform 1. I timed myself last time and, at a running pace, it took 2 minutes. With luggage and walking pace, it's twice that, and of course that's to say nothing of the safety issues of 100+ connecting passengers running along the platform because EMT / Northern refuse to hold the connecting service.

I've missed many a 10 minute connection due to a mixture of this, locking of train doors and late arrival, which results in having to hover around for an extra hour. Factor in the staff's incredibly lax approach to announcing platform changes and you've a recipe for a very stressful, dissatisfactory journey. Travelling back from Lincoln recently, there was a fairly ugly encounter between annoyed travellers and station staff as some held the doors open to allow their fellow travellers to make the train on time - we had been stood on 4B waiting for the arrival, only for it to then show up on platform 2 unannounced with a 3 minute window before the scheduled departure time. Ultimately, it left 3 minutes late but, shock horror, made the time up by the time it got to Leicester despite running in 1-door mode.

The frustrating thing is that the mad dash would be so easily fixed with a footbridge at the eastern platform end, but there seems to have been no consideration given to this.