Are there any figures for how many people miss trains due to last minute platform alterations?

[Towers]

The simple answer regarding platform changes and missed trains is surely that the notice given should be in line with the stated minimum connection time for the station concerned, otherwise the customer has a legitimate claim? After all, if it is stated that a customer needs five minutes to change trains, and any connection allowing less time than that would be deemed not valid, then surely five minutes is required to change platforms regardless of the circumstance? It hardly seems reasonable for that required five minutes to suddenly become two minutes because the platform allocation was changed as the train was entering the station throat!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One problem we have in the UK is PIS systems seemingly triggered as the train arrives in the platform - once the train enters a section where it is committed to platform X it should automatically trigger the announcement, but doesn't - Liverpool South Parkway is a good example.

TfW / LM train occasionally crosses over onto the the slow lines at Wavertree Jn, but the announcement/ PIS change only occurs as the train rolls into the station. This also happens at several other stations on the south half of the WCML. How easily correctable it is, I don't know.

I would imagine the issue there is that, in some places, a train could have reached the point where it is committed to platform X when still some distance from the station, and it might not even be the first train that is to depart from that platform.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I also wonder whether, in certain circumstances, platform alterations actually cause more harm than good in terms of train delays.

Not a platfprm alteration, but a decision to skip stop. This was at waterloo. A wheelchair user had to be transferred off the train as it was no longer going to call at his stop. By the time tghis had been arranged, and the right ramp found and deployed, the train had been delayed further by so much that it completely negated the point of skip stopping in the first place. It would have been easier to reinstate the stop the wheelchair user wanted.

But SWR Control have form here - skip stopping up services but then forgetting to switch them to the fast lines, so they can go no faster than the stopping service ahead of them. No bebefit to the people on the train, and an unnecessary further delay to the passengers who wanted to go to the skipped stops and had to wait for the next train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2025 ==

It's not just missed trains, but getting on the wrong train. Last week four of my fellow passengers on a non-stop rain from Leicester to St Pancras only discovered it wasn't going to call at Market Harborough when it whizzed through at full speed. Our train was running late and had left Leicester from the platform, and at the time, that the stopper was scheduled to do so. The stopper had in fact arrived at Leicester first, but been routed into the opposite platform. (A logical decision - both trains were scheduled to call at the same platform, and it makes sense for the one scheduled first to do so, as that is the one already on the screen, and also because people for the second train have more time to cross to the other platform)
I don't know at what point that alteration had been announced (as I had joined the train before Leicester) but clearly none of this foursome had realised, and had an unexpected round trip to London, adding nearly 200 miles and 2 hours to what should have been a 15-minute hop.

 

[Stephen42]

I was assuming automated announcements, now that most stations (that I use, anyway) seem to have automated all of the passenger information screens and announcements. There must be some data received by the information system to trigger the announcements, so it should be possible to somehow mine this data after the event.

Obviously you couldn't do this for manual announcements.

Yes it should be possible to capture most automated data, there are multiple systems involved and they don't always remain in contact with each other so plausibly some gaps. I'm not aware of anyone actually doing this exercise or at least publishing the data for it. Having the number of trains with late platform changes or platform only announced late on would be useful information. How many people are impacted by that would be a lot harder to gauge but train count would be better than nothing.

 

[uglymonkey]

It always seems to me the railway is run for the benefit of the railway, not the convience of the customers.

 

[RJ]

Don't know if they're still at it. This used to be a common thing at Denmark Hill, so much so that people crowded the narrow stairwells and footbridge in an already horrendously overcrowded station. The platform changes came at such short notices that if you weren't one of the people crowding the footbridge then you'd miss your train.

Haven't used the station in a while but I'd like to hope things have improved. At the time they were also doing things like blocking TfL Staff Oysters and Freedom Passes at the ticket gates despite them being valid on the Overground, causing more crowding at the tiny number of ticket gates the crowds were funnelled through.

 

[dk1]

It always seems to me the railway is run for the benefit of the railway, not the convience of the customers.

That was BRs speciality. Known as ‘Operational Convenience’

 

[43066]

Don't know if they're still at it. This used to be a common thing at Denmark Hill, so much so that people crowded the narrow stairwells and footbridge in an already horrendously overcrowded station. The platform changes came at such short notices that if you weren't one of the people crowding the footbridge then you'd miss your train.

Haven't used the station in a while but I'd like to hope things have improved. At the time they were also doing things like blocking TfL Staff Oysters and Freedom Passes at the ticket gates despite them being valid on the Overground, causing more crowding at the tiny number of ticket gates the crowds were funnelled through.

Less common there now due to the enhanced Thameslink service.

 

[Bikeman78]

It does seem incongruous that NR are allowed to turn off auto-announcements completely at their stations, yet Chiltern are being forced to apply for an exemption from the ORR because their onboard PIS system doesn't handle every single possible combination of stopping patterns that could possibly occur during disruption or engineering work.

(See https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...hiltern-railways-passenger-information-system)

I think every TOC is guilty of that, so I wonder why Chiltern is being singled out. I can think of times where I have been on a train that has skipped stops. The auto PA merrily announces we are now approaching x as the train whizzes through non stop.

 

[Ianmel1969]

Happened to me twice now at Woking with a change from platform 4 to 5 for the Portsmouth service just as it's coming into the station. No announcement either.

 

[plugwash]

I also wonder whether, in certain circumstances, platform alterations actually cause more harm than good in terms of train delays. The other day at Edinburgh, there was an alteration of a London-Aberdeen service from platform 2 to platform 8 (there was an empty set in plt 2 waiting to go to the depot). However, the catering team then had to transport all their supplies over the footbridge over to platform 8, subsequently delaying the train by roughly 10 mins, meanwhile, the empty train on platform 2 left the station. I know this is a niche example, but there will be plenty of local 'quirks' similar to this in other locations where altering the platform actually results in more of a delay compared to if there was no alteration in the first place.

I don't know the specifics at Edinburgh, but at most larger stations there are more platforms than lines, so the signaller may want to get the train into the station ASAP to clear the line.

 

[Stephen42]

I think every TOC is guilty of that, so I wonder why Chiltern is being singled out. I can think of times where I have been on a train that has skipped stops. The auto PA merrily announces we are now approaching x as the train whizzes through non stop.

Most other TOCs the limitation is that during disruption the traincrew don't always update the onboard system or that the onboard system is time consuming enough to update that only an audio announcement is done rather than it being impossible. Particularly the case for additional stops which by their nature will be harder to add then deselecting from a list of stations.

In the case of Chiltern, it's that even without disruption for engineering works a suitable calling pattern may not be setup in the system (due to technical constraints) and there is no possible way to visually display the information.

 

[The exile]

I would imagine the issue there is that, in some places, a train could have reached the point where it is committed to platform X when still some distance from the station, and it might not even be the first train that is to depart from that platform.

Why is that an issue - it’s just providing timely information. After all, the scheduled platform is displayed for trains that aren’t the first at that platform.

 

[Bikeman78]

Most other TOCs the limitation is that during disruption the traincrew don't always update the onboard system or that the onboard system is time consuming enough to update that only an audio announcement is done rather than it being impossible. Particularly the case for additional stops which by their nature will be harder to add then deselecting from a list of stations.

In the case of Chiltern, it's that even without disruption for engineering works a suitable calling pattern may not be setup in the system (due to technical constraints) and there is no possible way to visually display the information.

That is a bit odd. One would expect every likely scenario to be in the database. That said, class 317s never had working PIS when they turned out on the 1558 Liverpool Street to Ely. It was a booked working for a few months in 2022.

 

[Deepgreen]

I would love to know the data for Redhill alone, given the horrible mess made of the p0 construction and signing.

GWR trains stop, needlessly, a very long way from the stairs as there is no 2/3 car board.

The stairs (presumably) meet modern standards and thus have an intermediate landing, rather than the stairs for p1/2 which are direct, thus adding even more time to interchanges.

I have complained to NR, Southern and GWR about the lack of a simple stop board for GWR units, and all have repeatedly shrugged their corporate shoulders and say the design team has been disbanded so nothing can be done - an obvious and appalling nonsense!!

This, combined with very poor siting of train indicators on the new platform, makes interchanging at the last moment there a tedious and lengthy process. I no longer commute via Redhill, thank goodness.

 

[IanXC]

One problem we have in the UK is PIS systems seemingly triggered as the train arrives in the platform - once the train enters a section where it is committed to platform X it should automatically trigger the announcement, but doesn't - Liverpool South Parkway is a good example.

TfW / LM train occasionally crosses over onto the the slow lines at Wavertree Jn, but the announcement/ PIS change only occurs as the train rolls into the station. This also happens at several other stations on the south half of the WCML. How easily correctable it is, I don't know.

Depends on the PIS provider. KeTech look at the routes set (by the signaller/ARS, in S Class data areas) and show platform changes on that basis - a step down from beyond the point any other platform is available, but that would be a programming nightmare. I'm not sure whether any other providers have yet caught up with this concept.

 

[I_am_Nobody]

Most other TOCs the limitation is that during disruption the traincrew don't always update the onboard system or that the onboard system is time consuming enough to update that only an audio announcement is done rather than it being impossible. Particularly the case for additional stops which by their nature will be harder to add then deselecting from a list of stations.

In the case of Chiltern, it's that even without disruption for engineering works a suitable calling pattern may not be setup in the system (due to technical constraints) and there is no possible way to visually display the information.

This is very much off topic from this thread, but the units I work on sound like they work in a similar way to the Chiltern stock. I use a route code to set the PIS as it describes… quite often we have to wing it as there won’t be a code for what we are doing, and instead have to resort to manual audio announcements only… it’s annoying, as we would love to keep our voices and have the PIS do its job and function.

 

[JKF]

I’m pretty sure I can recall in the past being told of a platform alteration, only to then be told of another alteration before the train got in and running back over the footbridge. Possibly at Leeds. Can’t happen that often!

 

[zwk500]

I’m pretty sure I can recall in the past being told of a platform alteration, only to then be told of another alteration before the train got in and running back over the footbridge. Possibly at Leeds. Can’t happen that often!

I remember during a particularly spectacular day of disruption more than 10 years ago waiting for a train from York to King's Cross on Platform 3. got moved to p5, about 10 mins later back to p3. Just as the last passenger was getting off the footbridge an IC225 set pulled into Platform 5, plenty of people on the platform asking 'is that our train', and the announcement (manual) was only made as the train was a good two-thirds in the platform that yes, everybody on Platform 3 should indeed make their way to Platform 5 for the delayed 18.30 (I think it was) to London.

 

[Kite159]

Southampton Central is also quite bad at last minute platform changes, especially with the Salisbury services (from Eastleigh/Romsey) which can get routed into platform 4 instead of platform 3 at late notice.

 

[jfollows]

Manchester Oxford Road used to do it all the time, you’d sit under the display showing your train on platform 4, but it would use platform 3, which is over the footbridge. By the time you were going down the far side steps there’d be hordes of people heading towards you having just got off the train you were trying to catch. Just insulting and thoughtless behaviour towards passengers.

 

[seaviewer]

East Croydon and Norwood Junction are culprits.
At ECR down fasts are sometimes swapped from 3 to 2 if things are busy (understandable). At Norwood, down slows can be switched from 5 to 6 for no obvious reason.
Haven't missed a train yet, but can be traumatic, especially with a cup of coffee

 

[Harratt4]

I would love to know the data for Redhill alone, given the horrible mess made of the p0 construction and signing.

GWR trains stop, needlessly, a very long way from the stairs as there is no 2/3 car board.

The stairs (presumably) meet modern standards and thus have an intermediate landing, rather than the stairs for p1/2 which are direct, thus adding even more time to interchanges.

I have complained to NR, Southern and GWR about the lack of a simple stop board for GWR units, and all have repeatedly shrugged their corporate shoulders and say the design team has been disbanded so nothing can be done - an obvious and appalling nonsense!!

This, combined with very poor siting of train indicators on the new platform, makes interchanging at the last moment there a tedious and lengthy process. I no longer commute via Redhill, thank goodness.

Seems a small thing, so can see why everyone would attempt a shrug of the shoulders, but also something I would contact my MP about. Easy for them to raise with NR etc and if an MP on the case they may well think it is easier to just fix it rather than remonstrate with the MP. Also if they fix it, it is a quick win for the MP to say they are "working hard on behalf of their constituents". Might not work, but you loose nothing but 2 mins forwarding the reply to your MP asking if they might intervene to help people to see sense.

 

[35B]

Is that not illegal on accessibility grounds?

Implementations of this by airports have been challenged on precisely those grounds, and to the best of my knowledge seen off by the airports. I did hear something on (I think) "In Touch" a few years ago, and the airports interviewed did say that they'd made accommodations for visually impaired users.

 

[BazingaTribe]

The experience I have of changes at Reading have been very good. In general if the Basingstoke trains get swapped about, the new platform can be across the other side of the station, but they do ensure people have a chance to get there and get down the stairs safely. I've had the service held for thirty seconds or so at either end because the staff can see me coming and see the walking stick that means I'm not as light on my feet as I used to be. It's interesting -- I stopped regularly commuting along that route about 15 months ago, but still go in every so often. The Basingstoke trains seem to have swapped with the Newbury service and come in on platform 1 rather than platform 2, but that's immaterial as they share the same concourse, and the Newbury rolling stock is far nicer than the Basingstoke sprinter, even after the full green and grey upholstery refurbishment, so I know which one to get on.

I suspect that's because they're starting and finishing at the station though. In the case of XC through services, they stop and wait at Reading for 10-15 minutes anyway, so it's not a big deal if you're on platform 7 and need to get to platform 8. It's annoying, yes, but it's adequately prompted. I've attempted to guess in the past and always got it wrong, so now I do the reasonable thing and wait for an announcement knowing that I will probably have time to climb up and down the stairs to platform 8 if necessary.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion, though, that our little area of the south of England lives a bit of a charmed life as railways go though. I learned a long time ago to keep my wits about me when using the railways (after a random and unannounced platform alteration at Sinaia in Transylvania ended up costing me an arm and a leg after a taxi driver smooth-talked me into a ride across the country to Sibiu), but yeah, there's definitely scope for improvement.

 

[stuu]

Bristol Temple Meads used to be bad for this (I don't go there every day now thankfully). XC southbound especially would normally come into P6 or sometimes P10, and then be switched to P4 at the last minute. For those who don't know, the platforms at BTM are split into two, with even numbers at the south end and odd at the north, with the subway more towards the northern end. Someone on P6 needing to cross to P4 has to go ~250m or more, there can't be many stations where a platform change needs such a long walk.

They were usually quite good at waiting an extra few minutes but not always, I missed one once despite running most of the way.

 

[Western 52]

Bristol Temple Meads used to be bad for this (I don't go there every day now thankfully). XC southbound especially would normally come into P6 or sometimes P10, and then be switched to P4 at the last minute. For those who don't know, the platforms at BTM are split into two, with even numbers at the south end and odd at the north, with the subway more towards the northern end. Someone on P6 needing to cross to P4 has to go ~250m or more, there can't be many stations where a platform change needs such a long walk.

They were usually quite good at waiting an extra few minutes but not always, I missed one once despite running most of the way.

Also the subway there gets very crowded and you sometimes have to queue to go up the stairs. This causes further delay in changing platforms and happens a lot.

 

[robbeech]

As with most things on the railway, platform alterations are almost exclusively done to benefit the railway. However, unlike lots of things this does usually end up benefitting passengers aswell if they can avoid additional delays.

That all said, they’re (ime) increasingly handled quite badly for one reason or another. It’s the sort of thing that should have some form of regulation attached to it from a passenger rights point of view.

As Towers suggests, a platform alteration made and successfully announced inside the minimum connection* time should be regulated in a certain way. This could be a choice between holding the train until it has been there for the minimum connection time after the announcement or if the primary focus is running time then for people who miss a train as a result allowing them the same passenger rights as if they had missed a connection due to late running. (Including but not limited to alternative transport where applicable).


*Cross platform changes are often easy but not always so a blanket ruling should apply, afterall most people wouldn’t miss it so it isn’t a problem.

 

[hux385]

I've attempted to formalise how I think this should be approached by the industry. If this were followed, then it might make signallers/control think twice about enacting certain last minute changes. Let me know your thoughts...


Each station should have a matrix of travel times between pairs of platforms in the station. The travel time between a platform 'P' and another platform 'Q' will be deonoted as P~Q.

If a station has a concourse area, then this can be deonted by Ĉ, or Ĉ1, Ĉ2 etc. where there are multiple concourse areas. These concourse areas should also feature in the station matrix, for example, the travel time between concourse Ĉ2 and platform Q would be deonted as Ĉ2~Q.

In all cases, the values in the station matrix should assume that a passenger is having to move from the furthest end of their original platform/concourse, to the furthest end of their new platform. It should also be set on the assumption that a passenger travels an average of 1m/s to ensure fairness for people with limited mobility and to allow for crowding/general confusion!

A station's minimum connection time will be equal to the highest number in the station matrix and this will be denoted simply as ~.

SCENARIO 1 - PLATFORM ALTERATION

If a train's platform is altered from platform P to platform Q, then the train may depart on time provided there is ample notice of this alteration. The required notice is the corresponding value from the station matrix, P~Q. However, if the platform alteration is announced X minutes after the P~Q minute deadline, then the train must be delayed by X minutes and the station displays must be updated to reflect the new expected departure time.

SCENARIO 2 - PLATFORM SURPRESSED

If a train is not yet ready to be advertised at a station at ~ minus X minutes before its scheduled departure, then the train should be delayed by X minutes and the station displays should automatically update the expected departure time to reflect this.

However, if passengers are explicitly told to wait in a certain part of the station (e.g. concourse 2), then a train only needs to be advertised Ĉ2~Q minutes before departure (i.e. the value in the station matrix for the time between concourse 2 and the far end of platform Q). Still, if a train's platform announcement is delayed X minutes past the Ĉ2~Q minute deadline, then the train should wait until X minutes after its scheduled departure to leave.

 

[MikeWM]

Someone just decided to announce a platform change at Cambridge for a Kings Cross fast from platform 8 to platform 1. At 1636, when the train is due to depart at 1638. Cue literally hundreds of people running madly around Cambridge station, over the (totally inadequate for the number of people who use it) footbridge, etc.

Of course the train didn't actually depart until 4-5 minutes later than scheduled, but it wasn't announced that it would wait until everyone had got across. It does seem bizarre that a railway so otherwise focused on avoiding the slightest possibly dangerous passenger behaviour at stations (eg. shouting at people who put one foot over a yellow line) thinks it is acceptable to do this sort of thing on a regular basis.