How off-putting is it to change trains in GB - from rail regulars via 'normals' to OAPs to foreign visitors?

[gazzaa2]

Lack of reliability is a problem. I missed connections at the weekend because the train is outside the station for a while waiting for a platform (10-20 minutes both times and one was already delayed).

Then it's the whole scramble to get a seat when you may have already booked one for the journey you're on, or have enough room. I welcome changing trains if it's packed out and i'm stood.

 

[D1537]

We live near Nuneaton. On our regular trips to Edinburgh, we drive to Newark Northgate and use LNER direct. We could get a train to Peterborough and change there, but that's a good hour and a half longer (the drive is around an hour) and considerably more expensive even when you take into account the £24 weekend parking at NNG - plus the pain of carting luggage around PBO.

We could use Avanti as well, but we're not complete idiots.

 

[deltic]

Interchange penalties are a significant factor in economic appraisals that if memory serves me right are treated as a 20 minute time penalty in addition to the average wait time for the connecting service. All these values are based on research studies.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I spoke once to the manager of the downside refreshment room at Oxenholme. She told me that her entire business model was based on the poor performance of Avanti and TPE, leading to missed connections for Windermere and extended waits for the next one. Many of those poor souls sought solace in the warm and cosy buffet. If they had all made their booked connections it wouldn't make any money.

 

[miklcct]

Interchange penalties are a significant factor in economic appraisals that if memory serves me right are treated as a 20 minute time penalty in addition to the average wait time for the connecting service. All these values are based on research studies.

So that means if there were two possible tube routes, one with a cross-platform change and the other 15 minutes slower but without change at the same frequency, people will prefer the slower route, right?

 

[Magicake]

N.B. - I'm not claiming the the number of changes is irrelelvant. It's not, a direct train is clearly preferable. Especially for commuters (at some point the connection will go wrong) or for journeys involving 3+ legs (Every change increases the chance of the overall itinerary going out of the window). But I'm just questioning if single-change journeys have a demonstrable negative effect of statistical significance over a direct journey for leisure use such as this.

I would expect that a lot of people have one change already in most journeys due to having to change from bus / tube / tram / car / very local train service at the station.

That means that a single change rail journey could often be a two change overall journey which is a lot less appealing particularly for infrequent services.

 

[Pigeon]

I don't think it's useful to consider what people do on the Underground in a discussion of journeys on Network Rail. It's so very different a situation that the considerations relevant to NR journeys aren't relevant at all; either they don't exist (eg. you can't miss a train, you can always rely on your ticket to work) or they are pushed so far to the other end of the scale that options to ameliorate them don't exist, so you're not worried about making things worse for yourself (eg. you can't expect to get a seat anyway, and you don't expect the whole travelling experience to do anything other than suck massively; but on the other hand you're only on the train for a few minutes and it's over tolerably soon). There aren't enough possible points of comparison which remain meaningful to suggest any meaningful conclusions from considering it.

I draw a distinction between what I am prepared to tolerate when I'm just messing around on the railways for enjoyment, and what does and doesn't appeal when I'm primarily wanting to get somewhere. The former case is also not relevant to this discussion, and what follows relates only to the latter. And in the latter case I am very strongly opposed to avoidable changes.

The principal consideration is getting a decent seat. With the prevalence these days of short formations that have fewer seats to choose from in the first place, and crappy seating layouts reducing the proportion of seats that can be considered decent, this is a lot more difficult than it used to be in any case, so the process of boarding a train is significantly productive of stress and uncertainty. Every journey of course gives rise to one such incident, but every change of trains introduces another one, and renews the worry over whether the next leg of the journey is going to suck. People who are into gambling are said to enjoy the feelings induced by such uncertainties, but I detest them, and strongly resent being compelled to experience them by what at the end of the day is some rich sod's desire to be more rich.

(I do of course modify my opinion to suit particular cases based on the predicted loading patterns of the trains I'd be changing onto, but I doubt normals are into that.)

Tight changes are especially unwelcome these days because I can't "hurry for the connection" any more. It's no use me trying to increase my speed in response to a helpful guard waving come on, come on at me, because if I've got more than about 20 metres still to go, all that going faster does is make me have to stop for a blow-up before I get there, which is counterproductive. I also need to stop for a blow-up after ascending the steps to a footbridge (and "easy" shallow steps make it worse than old-style steeper ones). The practice of deliberately failing to hold connections, which is execrable, is another significant deterrent.

However, "generous" changes are also unwelcome because the stations one is waiting on are so unwelcoming. In manky weather, which is so common, they tend to be cold, bleak, dreary, and indifferently protected from damp; this is pretty much inherent, a station being what it is. But in hot sunny weather too many of them also have a tendency to be arid, dehydrating, desert-like heat traps, which is in large part due to architectural preferences for using large expanses and masses of concrete, exposed to the sunshine and re-radiating heat like one o'clock, to exclude greenery from the vicinity and replicate the conditions of a desert canyon. And nowhere to get a drink of water, of course, for the authentic desert experience. Stations which retain more of the original Victorian construction are generally better in this respect; stations where the modern architecture includes deliberately huge amounts of glazed area in the roof, or where Victorian glazed areas of lesser size have been enlarged and cleaned, are often very bad - as one would expect, since the same style of architecture in a horticultural setting is known as a "greenhouse". There is nowhere comfortable to sit (not that there ever has been), and there isn't even anything interesting to look at while waiting any more.

Very often, of course, changing introduces significant delay, to be endured under conditions which as described above are only pleasant in unusually accommodating states of the weather. What's significant is not the delay, but the conditions; equivalent delay on board the train, where it is warm and dry and there's at least some pretension to a cushion on the seat, I don't mind. So I do find annoying the assumption behind the train times function on the NR website that minimum journey time is always the prime consideration; it is very fond of spewing out some complex schedule including two or three changes to get between two points where there actually is a through service but it's a couple of minutes slower, and the "reduce transfers" checkbox is basically useless.

What I want to do is get the stress and hassle of bagging a decent seat over and done with, once, then settle down in that seat and get comfortable, and stay settled down until I get there. I don't care if I could get there a bit quicker by repeating that stress and hassle multiple times and including episodes of getting cold and bored on dreary stations. It is more important that the journey should be comfortable and pleasant than that it should be maximally rapid but stressful and full of uncomfortable interludes. The Midland Railway rules, OK?

I'm not going to get into the influence that the hideous and insane mess of current ticketing practices has on the situation; that would be more appropriate as a sub-section of a different and rather enormous rant.

 

[Horizon22]

When I once studied a bit of transport planning, there was a known “interchange penalty” that could be applied to transport models. It was normally a number or % but was never evenly distributed.

It is very dependent on mode, location and frequency. But it certainly exists.

Outside of London and major cities, I’m always quite wary of a sub-10 minute interchange and that’s as a relatively healthy male.

 

[Dr Day]

around the old BR forecasting guide

As far as I am aware this is still in widespread use within the UK rail industry and regularly updated with new research but someone on here will no doubt be able to confirm if anything specific has been done recently with respect to the interchange 'penalty' over the timetabled connection and how this differs by planned frequency on either leg as a proportion of overall journey time, station classification, luggage, crowding etc.

The positives in recent years of more readily accessible real time information (particularly on platform allocation ) have probably made it easier for the informed to make connections however the growth of train-specific itineraries/fares and associated ‘optimal’ journey planning which ignore the consequences of any risks of even minor delays outweigh this.

 

[Oxfordblues]

When I worked at Bradford Interchange in the late-1970s we had a once-weekly through train to Wolverhampton on Sunday afternoons. People of South-Asian origin would come into the Travel Office and ask if they could get to Wolverhampton to visit family and friends without changing. I imagined they had a horror of being stranded at some God-forsaken country junction en-route. They'd happily wait a few days for the assurance of a through train.

 

[deltic]

I’d love to see some actual data

It seems fairly obvious that a direct journey is more attractive than multiple changes but what difference does it make to actual demand? Is there a formula/ data to show what difference it’d make to introduce a direct service?

On the one hand, people on here want direct London trains from everywhere, the fact that “people prefer direct trains” gets trotted out every time someone suggests a random combination of cities for a new “Cross Country” service…

…. But then often we see suggestions that dozens of direct bus services into the city centre be curtailed and passengers forced to change into light/heavy rail from the same people

For unfamiliar passengers, a direct service probably makes much more of a difference, similarly passengers with significant luggage and/or children. But how flexible do we need to be to attract/ retain such passengers? Did Sheffield to Manchester trains become noticeably quieter when the decades-long hourly extension to Manchester Airport was removed? Or did people grumble a bit whilst putting up with the inconvenience and occasionally tutting?

I partly mention the airport service because people demanded we retained through airport services from Llandudno/ Barrow/ Windermere/ Middlesbrough/ Cleethorpes at the same time that flights are increasingly based around connections at “hubs”.

Changing is fine on the London Underground too (and for a long time people were demanding the “hopper” ticket on London’s buses to make changing vehicles more attractive) so this seems to be more of a problem on less frequent routes where a missed connection is more of an issue

But I fear that this is one of those issues where everyone has Strong Opinions but no task data to justify their hunches, just a few anecdotes or claims of overheard conversations (see also “Should Long Distance Trains Be Delayed To Maintain Late Connections” or rants about replacement bus services)

There is plenty of research out there - some of it quite technical, the following cover research from the Netherlands, UK and Australia https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146515001192

Costs of Interchange: A Review of the Literature. - White Rose Research Online

eprints.whiterose.ac.uk

https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2013_douglas_jones.pdf

 

[Andrew1395]

Sufficiently for the ORCATS model to build in 76 passenger profiles, each with different attitudes to interchange

 

[daikilo]

It is an attitude of mind fed by whether you believe most trains are close to time, and there are fallback solutions like the next train.

Last year I made a 12 hour one-way journey finishing at 19h involving as follows: metro, train, metro, train, 3 trains, taxi (plus several walks).

The only concession I made in the planning was to prefer WMT/LNWR over Avanti.

 

[railfan99]

Travelling with a Global Eurailpass last year and on many days having a medium suitcase weighing 15-18kg and a trusty backpack weighing seven to eight kilograms, there were three changes I especially disliked.

Two were on the same night. I arrived at Leeds at 1806 hours and because I'd never been there before, and was unfamiliar with the platform layout, I missed an 1812 hours to Bradford Forster Square by 30 seconds. I then found an 1826 hours towards Bradford Interchange and in the rain at Shipley, had a scheduled seven minute connection, but we were three late arriving. I then had to waqlk quickly across a carpark in the rain, yell out to revenue protection officers that I had a Eurailpass - they didn't quibble - and race across the footbridge (mercifully covered). The 1844 to Bradford Forster Square was two minutes late, departing at 1846, but I waspuffed as it wasn't fun dragging my suitcase, even though the lifts at the footbridge worked.

The third was at Birmingham New St on a weekday when I arrived ex Taunton on a CrossCountry set at 1701, five late and departed bang on time at 1749 (to the second!) on a three car railcar 170104-55104-50104 to Derby. I had to stand until departure from Tamworth. I'm not critical of that because it was weekday peak period and given the route, a through train was never possible, but at the end of an intensive day, it was a little tiring despite the lengthy connection allowing a visit to New St's M&S to buy food.

Some transfers seem incredibly lengthy in walking time: IIRC, Paddington TfL to National Rail is one.

However compared with changing from and to many trains in Europe, it's easier in the UK, because any older European trains have infernal steps that when I was travelling with my wife in 2022 meant I had to lug her much heavier suitcase up and down. One is trying to do it quickly as on busier trains there will be many alighting or boarding, and others also have substantial luggage.

To use that silly USA term, changing trains though is no 'deal breaker' for me but a tight connection can be a disaster if frequency on the second line is low.

I assume by 'railheading' forum users mean 'driving to a station further up the line because it has better frequency' and hence the chance of less crowded trains.

 

[zwk500]

I assume by 'railheading' forum users mean 'driving to a station further up the line because it has better frequency' and hence the chance of less crowded trains.

Driving to any station really, it can be on a different line as well if that line has better connections. And it happens for a lot of reasons, among which cost or availability of car parking and price of the line's tickets are as prominent if not more so than connectivity.
Where I lived in Sussex there was sometimes cross-flow railheading, where some passengers would drive from towns on Line A to a station on Line B to access more frequent trains or different destinations, but passengers from towns on station B would drive to a station on Line A because the tickets + Car parking was cheaper overall than using their nearest station.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There is plenty of research out there - some of it quite technical, the following cover research from the Netherlands, UK and Australia https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146515001192

Costs of Interchange: A Review of the Literature. - White Rose Research Online

eprints.whiterose.ac.uk

https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2013_douglas_jones.pdf

This first one appears interesting, but having read the summary, it seems to 'prove' the opposite of what I thought it was saying! I shall have to re-read it carefully.

There are obviously a huge number of factors affecting peoples' reaction to changing trains - not least people themselves. Hence this!

Sufficiently for the ORCATS model to build in 76 passenger profiles, each with different attitudes to interchange

One thing I began to ponder was the need for a controlled comparison case. The only one I could come up with is from 50 years ago, but it might prompt someone in here to find a modern example, which in turn might even prompt some research today (depending on who reads this thread).

My case is the MML service to Derby and Nottingham back in the late 60s and 70s (and maybe even some in the 80s, but I was out of it then).

As some in here will remember, in those days there were, outside a few peak-hour extras, 2 x Class 1 TPH from St Pancras, which sought to provide an express service of 1 TPH to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield.

The two trains were an express - first top Leicester - and on to Sheffield, and a semi-fast to Derby or Nottingham which preceeded the express by departing St Pancras by about 30-35 mins earlier.

Thus Leicester and Sheffield got a direct 1 TPH express service, but to do the best with the resources available, the Sheffield express alternated between running via Derby one hour and Nottingham the next.

So, in the hour that the express ran via Derby, passengers for Nottingham had a very simple, cross platform connection into the semi-fast service at Leicester, where the express overtook the semi-fast and after a 4 min stop, roared off towards Trent.

Five minutes later (if all was well) the semi-fast departed for Nottingham, stopping at Loughboro'.

The next hour, the process was reversed - the express going to Sheffield via Nottingham, and the semi-fast going to Derby and stopping at Loughboro' and (at least in some years) at Long Eaton.

This was a near-perfect, practical example that could show the reluctance or otherwise of passengers to change trains.

It was also a very reliable connection, because the down express would, in 99% of cases, not be able to overtake the semi-fast, even if it was running late.

(It wasn't perfect, because there was, of course, a time-penalty of 15-20 minutes if a Derby or Nottingham passenger left the express for the semi-fast - because of the pathing delay and the one or two stops after Leicester.)

I have no idea if any research was done at the time, and sadly, I never thought to try to assess the passenger numbers changing in any serious manner when at Leicester in those days. But, my impression, for what it's worth 50 years later, is that not that many people took advantage of this most convenient change - perhaps 20 - 30 passengers in most cases during the day, and this would include Loughboro' and Long Eaton passengers. (I wasn't often at Leicester in the evening peak, ie around 17.30 - 19.00, when numbers would probably have been more.)

In other words, I'd guess something like 75% of Derby and Nottingham passengers opted for the direct express every two hours, rather than bother with the change and slightly poorer schedules on the semi-fast. (I must stress I am only estimating these numbers from impressions at the time, and I could be just plain wrong.)

Interestingly, going in the up in those days would also be a fascinating study, because - as opposed to catching the Sheffield express service - any passengers from Derby or Notthingham opting for the semi-fast and changing would also face the problem of finding a seat on the express at Leicester.

In comparison, finding a seat on the express at Derby or Nottingham would be easier, and even in a crowded train, they would get first chance at Leicester as passengers left the train.

This long-gone example begs the question: are there any similar services on the network today where the 'change reluctance' factor could be measured in practice? Possibly on the Southern networks somewhere?

 

[Jim the Jim]

As a student I used to travel with a lot of luggage several times a year. Every connection added to the stress of whether I was going to find enough space to store it, not to mention a seat for myself. And of course that luggage needed to be carried in and off trains and across stations as well. So I would try to go for as few changes as possible.

 

[Gaelan]

most Terminii in London to say the Eurostar service

Eurostar especially so because none of the official retailers involved sell through tickets (or even separate tickets in one transaction). I believe Rail Europe is the only one that does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This long-gone example begs the question: are there any similar services on the network today where the 'change reluctance' factor could be measured in practice? Possibly on the Southern networks somewhere?

Oxted to Uckfield, which has been run as a shuttle and as through trains to London (where the vast majority of users are going*), could be a good start.

* It's a better comparison than e.g. Morecambe-Lancaster, which might nominally appear to need good connections to the mainline but in practice is a "local train for local people" with most users not continuing elsewhere, if you stand at Lancaster and watch where they go on alighting! St Albans has been quoted in the past on here as another where you'd think people would mostly be changing for onward journeys but aren't.

 

[zwk500]

Eurostar especially so because none of the official retailers involved sell through tickets (or even separate tickets in one transaction). I believe Rail Europe is the only one that does.

Eurostar has the check-in and security as well which is different from a normal change

Oxted to Uckfield, which has been run as a shuttle and as through trains to London (where the vast majority of users are going*), could be a good start.

Also could look at Seaford-Brighton and the comparisons with London trains, or IIRC there are some Bognor trains that don't go beyond Barnham.

 

[Meerkat]

Oxted to Uckfield, which has been run as a shuttle and as through trains to London (where the vast majority of users are going*), could be a good start.

* It's a better comparison than e.g. Morecambe-Lancaster, which might nominally appear to need good connections to the mainline but in practice is a "local train for local people" with most users not continuing elsewhere, if you stand at Lancaster and watch where they go on alighting! St Albans has been quoted in the past on here as another where you'd think people would mostly be changing for onward journeys but aren't.

Oxted to Uckfield will be mainly local journeys though wont it - as in day trips without luggage.
Its clearly worse to have to change, but all the railway really needs to know is how many people it dissuades from going by rail, and I don't know how you work that out because what people say and do is probably different.

 

[SussexSeagull]

The Hove - Brighton shuttles are so ingrained in the local psyche people don't even think about getting on a London train at Worthing when they want to get to Brighton, although I suspect local users get on a bus.

 

[Bantamzen]

There's nothing worse in my books than seeing the results of a ticket search and seeing the phrase "3 Changes" or worse "4 Changes" in the details when:

• I'm travelling with luggage
• I'm travelling with family / friends
• I've got a time critical destination

The latter being the biggest dread of all, because it means there is a potential struggle ahead, especially these days. And I'm a pretty experienced traveller, and knows how to use multiple resources to keep track of the journey & look for alternatives when things go wrong. Goodness knows how it is for other people who don't travel as often, or are not as confident using resources to help smooth their journeys. So I firmly suspect that many people travelling on holiday, or seeing family for Christmas etc etc may take one look at some of their options and think "nope!". Of course (and before anyone asks) there won't be any data on people decided to sack off the idea of travelling by train as opposed to driving, but I definitely think that some of the journey options (not to mention prices) will put a lot of people off.

 

[Meerkat]

On average will a journey involving 3 different trains be more delayed than one involving 1 - my first instinct is it is 3 times more likely to go wrong, but that's quite likely more my pessimism than reality??
Of course if one of them goes wrong you can be left on a cold station for ages, rather than sitting in a (stationary) warm train......

 

[Barry52]

we have always got a direct train, when possible, changing in london is a nightmare. we live in the midlands now much better.

 

[driverd]

A figure I often quote is one given to me a few years back. I was at an industry event and speaking to a civil engineer from Arup. They had commissioned a study into exactly this, and the headline figure was circa 70% of overall market is lost when a connection is introduced.

This was, of course, a very informal chat about broad theory (at that point it had a tenuous relevance to my role in planning). I never actually saw the details of the study or the report itself, but coming from the likes of Arup I would assume it to be relatively thorough and well researched.

Of course, that doesn't help answer questions of scale. The Nottingham - S&C link is often touted, but I'm not too sure exactly how many people of the East Midlands desperately wish to travel to Dent or Lazonby and Kirkozwald (slightly facetious, I know, but it's a bit of a much loved concept that I suspect is rooted more in a rose tinted view of reconnecting the old LMS, than actually any basis in reality).

From a planning perspective, it comes down to searching out those markets that are under-served. For instance (and as appears to have been proven case positive by northern), there has always been strong cross Manchester traffic from NE England to North Wales. The introduction of the Leeds - Chester service allows this market to grow substantially by tapping into that 70% who are otherwise put off by the idea of a change at Piccadilly.

 

[Meerkat]

A figure I often quote is one given to me a few years back. I was at an industry event and speaking to a civil engineer from Arup. They had commissioned a study into exactly this, and the headline figure was circa 70% of overall market is lost when a connection is introduced.

I wonder what alternative they modelled. ie if you had one train line and suddenly decided to split it in the middle then I imagine a lot of demand would be lost.
If you have a network and breaking a connection allows more frequent services, not necessarily for the journey you are breaking, then its complicated.

 

[Bantamzen]

A figure I often quote is one given to me a few years back. I was at an industry event and speaking to a civil engineer from Arup. They had commissioned a study into exactly this, and the headline figure was circa 70% of overall market is lost when a connection is introduced.

This was, of course, a very informal chat about broad theory (at that point it had a tenuous relevance to my role in planning). I never actually saw the details of the study or the report itself, but coming from the likes of Arup I would assume it to be relatively thorough and well researched.

Of course, that doesn't help answer questions of scale. The Nottingham - S&C link is often touted, but I'm not too sure exactly how many people of the East Midlands desperately wish to travel to Dent or Lazonby and Kirkozwald (slightly facetious, I know, but it's a bit of a much loved concept that I suspect is rooted more in a rose tinted view of reconnecting the old LMS, than actually any basis in reality).

From a planning perspective, it comes down to searching out those markets that are under-served. For instance (and as appears to have been proven case positive by northern), there has always been strong cross Manchester traffic from NE England to North Wales. The introduction of the Leeds - Chester service allows this market to grow substantially by tapping into that 70% who are otherwise put off by the idea of a change at Piccadilly.

The thing to remember here is that many people's journey will not have started at the railway station, they first have to get there. So, for example, someone travelling from Harrogate to Manchester Airport at the moment (and assuming that one day TPE will operate somewhere near normal) will have to first travel to the station (1st change), then change onto TPE at Leeds (2nd change). However if, as some people seem to desire, they found themselves chucked off at Victoria to get across to Piccadilly for a shuttle to the airport, then you add in a 3rd change onto Metrolink, and 4th onto said shuttle. Not only would this slow things down quite a bit, adding extra risk, but hauling suitcases onto a busy tram ain't fun! Its sometimes bad enough trying to do it onto a TPE at P16 in Leeds.

An itinerary such as the latter scenario would likely have people thinking they'd rather hire an airport bus or taxi, especially if they were travelling in a group. Also its worth keeping in mind with Manchester Aiport, TPE returns are valid for up to 3 hours after the booked service, very useful if your flight has been delayed. Breaking a journey like that would mean losing that benefit. I'm not sure if this kind of offer exists elsewhere, but I've certainly been glad of it in the past! Its touches like this that help to attract punters to the rails.

 

[miklcct]

They had commissioned a study into exactly this, and the headline figure was circa 70% of overall market is lost when a connection is introduced.

This has happened in Hong Kong for a few times but I doubt if the figure is as high as 70%, but at least we can all see the alternative transport has taken up demand.

Kwun Tong Line connected Kwun Tong and North Point direct in the past with a harbour crossing, but the direct line was broken in 2002 with one extra stop where a cross-platform connection takes place instead. As the replacement service was less frequent (compare 2.5-minute headway with 2-minute headway) with trains frequently full at the connection node, passengers were driven away to direct cross-harbour buses which saw passenger growth despite they might not be as fast as the railway. Similar things happened when the direct East Rail Line to E. Tsimshatsui was taken away in 2009 as well with a cross-platform interchange achievable only 50% of the time and less frequent service as well. However, the whole bus fleet and any other forms of road transport would not be able to eat up 70% of the rail demand there.

 

[Geoff DC]

Living in Penzance, most of my rail journeys are at least 4 hours and often much more, so a change of trains gives the opportunity to stretch my legs and sometimes even go for a beer.
For example, I've been stood on the platform at Dundee waiting for the LNER to Kings X watching the Cross Country direct service to Penzance depart. It might be direct but no way would I go all that way on a Voyager even in 1st, Plus it's quicker via Kings X and Paddington than direct.
Also for many destinations the dreaded Cross Country is often the only option for part of the journey, so a 1st class ticket is essential & careful planning is needed to avoid changes at the more spartan stations.
Newton Abbot is a good changeover station, and I don't mind an hour or more wait as there is an excellent Pub right by the station.
The IETs have changed things a bit though, as a Voyager is more comfortable than Hitachi's finest.