How Frequent does 'Turn up and go' mean to you

[DynamicSpirit]

How frequent would a train service have to be before you treated it as 'turn up and go' - in other words, before you would just arrive at the station at a random time, without seriously bothering to try to time your arrival to when the next train is due.

I thought this would be an interesting topic to see what people's attitudes are because over the years I've seen a few disagreements about what frequency people would consider to be turn-up-and-go.

For the purpose of answering this question, assume you're not trying to make a connection with some much less frequent train or bus. And assume we're talking about the normal schedule, and - if necessary - that you've checked there's no disruption on the route. Also assume that the trains are scheduled at completely regular intervals, to within 30 seconds. ('Every 7.5 minutes' probably means a 7 minute gap, then an 8 minute gap, then 7 minutes, etc.)

For the avoidance of doubt: If (for example) you would want a train at least every 5 minutes before you forget about checking train schedules, then 'at least every 5 minutes' is your answer. If you would want a train every 6 minutes, then 'at least every 7.5 minutes' is your answer.

ADDED based on the discussion up to post #30:
I was thinking of local/commuter services when I posted the poll, so if you feel your answers would be different for local and long-distance services, please answer for local services. And if you still feel that you would have different answers for different journeys or different situations, answer for the local rail journey you most often make.

Obviously it's not a black and white issue: There are lots of factors other than the interval between services that would influence whether you bother looking at the timetable, but I was hoping the poll would provide a rough idea of how frequent trains usually need to be before most people stop bothering to time their arrival at the station to the timetable.

 

[Starmill]

For me personally, quarter-hourly or better. It is pretty rare that I'm ever treated to the privelage of that from a national rail service though (obviously tramways, London Underground, T&W Metro etc are all "turn up and go" even in the unlikely event that you end up actually waiting longer than a quarter hour, except the LU trains where there's a published timetable).

 

[Mathew S]

For a suburban commuter service, I'd say every 10 mins (which is what I voted for). But it does depend on the journey. For an urban rapid-transit service (e.g. Manchester Meteolink) my expectation would be more like every 2/3 minutes. A lot depends on the total length of the journey I'm making. For an hour long journey, waiting 10 mins at the start is mostly irrelevant. For a ten minute journey, it's a different story.

 

[Matt_pool]

I voted every 15 minutes which is what we get on the Merseyrail Northern line most of the time anyway. There has been the odd occasion where I have missed a Merseyrail train by a couple of minutes due to a queue at the ticket office or whatever, so waiting for 12 minutes until the next train isn't too bad, as long as I can get a 4G signal and the station has got a proper waiting room/shelter in case it's chucking it down.

You do actually see quite a lot of people turn up at Merseyrail stations and you can tell that they haven't checked the timetable; but they obviously know the trains are quite regular anyway so it doesn't seem to bother most people.

I always check Live Departures before I travel anyway because one slight mishap on Merseyrail (signal or point failure etc) can pretty much screw up the network for several hours!

 

[cuccir]

There are 5 trains an hour on my commute between Newcastle and Durham, albeit not evenly spread, and that doesn't feel like turn up and go to me, so I've voted 10 minutes.

To me, turn up and go means that you never normally have more than a short wait, even if a couple of trains are a little late. At every 10 mins that feels about right - you'd be unlcuky to have to wait more than 15 mins, and it would be significant disruption if you waited more than 20. But at 4 or 5 an hour it's more likely to stretch to 20 mins and plausible to reach 30.

 

[AlexNL]

For me a turn up and go service would have to run at least every ten minutes, but it's only useful if connecting services are timed appropriately.

If buses run every ten minutes but trains run every fifteen, you're inevitably going to run into some connections being quite tight while others are rather long. This will make some services more attractive than others due to the connection being more robust.

 

[cb a1]

I selected 'at least every 15 minutes' but I would agree with the interesting observation by others that the length of the journey affects the answer.
My answer was selected on the basis that I was thinking of my train journeys which are typically an hour or longer.

 

[class387]

The limit for me is every 15 min - any less frequent and I will make sure to check the timetable first. Though on something like the London Underground it would probably be closer to every 5 min to be convenient.

 

[TubeMapCentral]

It also depends on the station. At Liverpool Street, passengers are usually permitted to board trains as soon as they arrive, no waiting at the gates, so for Colchester, there will almost always be a train to board no matter what time of day. Stratford is different, there isn't even a canopy over the GEML platform.

 

[yorksrob]

About fifteen minutes.

 

[ComUtoR]

For me it means what it says and nothing more. I turn up, wait for the next train, and go. Frequency of service doesn't factor into it. Turn up and go, for me, is about how you pay and book your tickets. A turn up and go service means I have no requirement to book in advance because I can literally, turn up, get on the next train and go.

If I am taking the train anywhere I need to check the times. I have no desire to sit about waiting for a train or getting to the station and just missing one. Today I need to be in London as I have to be somewhere at 11.00. All services are 'turn up and go' but I still need to plan ahead. If i was required to book in advance then I would have planned a few days ago.

 

[talltim]

There are 5 trains an hour on my commute between Newcastle and Durham, albeit not evenly spread, and that doesn't feel like turn up and go to me, so I've voted 10 minutes.

To me, turn up and go means that you never normally have more than a short wait, even if a couple of trains are a little late. At every 10 mins that feels about right - you'd be unlcuky to have to wait more than 15 mins, and it would be significant disruption if you waited more than 20. But at 4 or 5 an hour it's more likely to stretch to 20 mins and plausible to reach 30.

Yes, my serverice is 5 trains an hour, but with a gaps of 24 minutes and 16 minute. There are also three trains within 10 minutes! (All this is assuming they are on time, normally one is late and gets mixed in with the three, making them all late and meaning I never know which to catch)

 

[Senex]

I've voted 10 minutes, thinking essentially about suburban services. But as others have said, if it were something like LUL or Manchester Metro central area Picc to Vic, then I'd be thinking in terms of every two to three minutes. It gets more complicated with routes like Manchester to Leeds at 15-minute intervals, because for something like that I personally would always be planning for a specific train and would not want to have to hang around for 14 minutes having just missed a train. However, I'd happily call Birmingham to London or Manchester to London at 20-minutes intervals a turn-up-and-go service. The problem is that although both they and TPE may be that in terms of intervals, they most certainly aren't in terms of ticketing. Should the definition of "turn-up-and-go" be extended to include a requirement to be available to all types of ticket?

 

[TheDavibob]

It's an odd one. Even on the tube, waiting for 8 minutes for a Met Line train on the Uxbridge branch is a drag. But even a half-hourly service on a longer route (I'm thinking Cambridge-London, here) is sort of fine, sufficient to remove the need to *aim* for a train (or at least not worry about missing one, which is probably more pertinent).

Turn up and go should mean, at least to me, the removal of a need for a timetable. But, as outlined above (and an even better example mentioned above in the Euston to New Street case) in many cases the main consideration is whether or not it matters if you do miss your train, which in turn vastly reduces the time you need to leave and rapidly speeds up journey. Of course, this scales with route distance: I'd wait 20 mins for a train London to Birmingham no worries, less so a suburban metro (eg Lichfield to Birmingham with 20 minute gaps - don't want to miss my train).

 

[matt_world2004]

For the purposes of rail and bus service planning tfl use the definition of every 12 minutes as turn up and go.

 

[PeterC]

I would probably say 12 minutes for buses and 15 for trains. No need for a timetable, no need to book, ticket valid on the next service if you miss one.

Plus of course you only need to make a single allowance for late running, not geting an earlier bus to the station "just in case" to get an earlier train than you need for your onward connection "just in case".

 

[Mutant Lemming]

When the people of Zurich turned down the proposals to build an underground system back in the 70s the city transport operator looked at improving the tramway system. Their studies reckoned that 6 minutes was the optimum wait time and so created timetables with a six minute frequency on most sections of route. This seems to have been a success with the network continuing to expand.

 

[Deepgreen]

Entirely depends on where and why I am going. For a specific appointment I would prefer to allow for the possibility of my desired train not running, so that steers me towards a minimum frequency of 8-10 minutes. For a less stringent diary, I'd be content with 15 minutes. It also depends somewhat on the historical reliability of the route - I'll be more cautious where a route is prone to failure. A further factor is whether I am turning up and going from home, from work, from another location, or indeed from another train (i.e. a connection, whether advertised or not). Edit - it also depends to an extent on the facilities at the departure station.

 

[hawk1911]

Once the frequency reaches every 20 minutes, or better, I stop worrying about the timetable.

 

[oliverpckehoe]

I'm used to waiting (thanks 2E12) so I'd say every 30 minutes or better would be satisfactory. Of course if only 2tph leads to overcrowding (Cornish Main Line is lucky to get 1tph- often gets busy) that's a different story.

 

[Mag_seven]

Personally I would not bother with the TT if it was 9 minutes or less. 10 or more then I would consult the TT. A lot of what other people think will no doubt be based on expectations e.g. a turn up and go frequency would be expected as every couple of minutes for a short hop in central London. Its a bit trickier for longer journeys - Virgin were almost trying to sell a service every 20 mins from London to Manchester as turn up and go when the new Very High Frequency WCML timetable first came out, but personally even with that frequency I would still be consulting the TT.

 

[zoneking]

Also depends on ticket type. No point in turning up if your ticket is not valid on the train in question as it is am or pm peak.

 

[Mathew S]

Another reflection: it also depends on whether all services on a route are equal. There are six trains an hour from, as an example, Wigan to Manchester - not quite every 10 mins but near enough (the longest gap is, I think, 16 mins). However, with the fastest journeys at 30 mins and the slowest taking 50% longer at 45 mins, it does matter which one you catch. That's before we get onto different routes and crowding levels.
A true walk up and go service would also have touch-in/out ticketing so no ticket office/machine queues, a single fixed price for any given journey with no discounts for buying in advance or travelling on certain trains, and a consistent standard of rolling stock.

 

[faltskog36abba]

I voted 15 minutes as I think that is enough time to wait, In my case medium journeys [Trans Pennine] Manchester to Leeds. I think Metrolink in Manchester have it spot on though with a lot of trams running at 6 minute intervals for short journeys.

 

[42626]

I voted 15 min, although anything is an improvement on the current 1tph at my local station (Blackrod)

 

[Starmill]

I voted 15 minutes as I think that is enough time to wait, In my case medium journeys [Trans Pennine] Manchester to Leeds. I think Metrolink in Manchester have it spot on though with a lot of trams running at 6 minute intervals for short journeys.

There is a real contrast that they have services on a 6 minute headway from East Didsbury (Metrolink) against the mish-mash of the trains from East Didsbury. Especially when you consider Metrolink are charging £4.20 / £5.80 against £4.30 / £6.30 on the train. For a journey into town at say 1645, it's therefore £2.30 more to use the train, despite there being 40 minute gaps with no trains at that time.

 

[hexagon789]

I would say every 10 minutes or better, a Metro-style frequency, perhaps 15 minutes on longer journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do actually see quite a lot of people turn up at Merseyrail stations and you can tell that they haven't checked the timetable

My observation is that that mostly isn't the case except where you've got at least two branches serving the station and so an 8 or 12tph frequency. Standing around in the cold for 15 minutes is unpleasant and unnecessary when you have a memorable timetable.

Personally I would use a timetable for any service that's less frequent than every couple of minutes. Short distance walking times are very predictable indeed so it's easy to time your arrival with the arrival of the train (assuming a ticket is already held).

 

[snookertam]

I voted 10 minutes. A lot of routes in the central Glasgow area are every 15 minutes (or thereabouts) and it involves a brief check of the time before heading out. Reducing it to 10 where possible removes that I reckon and also does a great deal for public perception.

Removing the idea of almost any wait or any requirement to organise your day around public transport likely increases it's patronage beyond what a 2tph increase in frequency would typically achieve at lower frequencies.

 

[RJ]

I think this question only really applies if the trains run at even intervals. It's a 4 tph service for the journey I do, but I always check the times because the wait can be up to 21 minutes.