Lack of consideration to passengers with tight connections

[Old Yard Dog]

Network Rail seem to have little consideration for passengers with tight connections when allocating platforms. Travellers are often forced to run long distances on stations due to late incoming trains when a little bit of flexibility could have ameliorated the problem. I am an overweight 66 year old and have suffered twice in recent days.

On Thu 15th Feb, I was on the 2255 from Ruabon to Chester (due in at 2319) expecting an easy walk from platform 7a to 7b to connect with the 2330 to Hooton, my last train home. The train was 6 mins late leaving Ruabon and platform 7a was occupied. So my train, a Birmingham - Manchester working, was reallocated to the (usually) westbound platform 3 instead of eastbound platform 4, the normal platform for Manchester trains which was empty. We were then held for a few minutes at the signals outside Chester to allow a westbound freight to pass.

We arrived in platform 3 at 2328 some distance from the footbridge. With no time to wait for the lift, I had to run like the clappers down the platform, up the steps, over the bridge and down the steps to platform 7 arriving puffing, panting and sweating. It spoilt a nice evening. I only caught my train as the 2330 was also late.

Then on Sat 17th Feb, I was on the late running 1829 Newcastle to York (due at platform 5 at 1928) intending to catch the 1940 to Liverpool (from platform 4). I wasn't too concerned about the delay as, remembering P4 is on a curve from Scarborough at the far north of the station, I mistakenly thought P5 was the mainline platform next to it and the Liverpool train couldn't go till my train had left for Kings Cross. However the platforms at York are not numbered in a sensible order and my train from Newcastle not only stopped on a platform across the tracks from P4, it stopped as far south as imaginable down that platform leaving me with 3 or 4 minutes to run 200 yards with a footbridge crossing thrown in.

This time I was not the only passenger in this predicament. Some 30-40 people also made the mad dash, including many elderly people with luggage. With all Newcastle - Liverpool trains cancelled on Saturday (as seems usual), this was a more important connection than normal and I suspect many people had advanced tickets meaning they couldn't wait for the next train (if just going to Leeds or Manchester).

Again I arrived puffing, panting and sweating and caught my train with half a minute to spare. To his credit, the conductor did hold the train for a couple of minutes (but the alternative would have been slamming the door on a steady stream of pensioners).

Knowing an hour or so in advance that the Newcastle - London train would be late, why did the signalman at York not divert it to P3 (allowing an easy walk to P4)??

Obviously nobody waiting at a station wants platform changes at the last minute. And ironically the Liverpool train was delayed at Cross Gates and replatformed at short notice at Leeds causing mayhem. So there is a balance to be drawn. However I think NR need to be more passenger focussed and flexible. And TOCs need to hold connections and have announcements made that this is being done.

 

[AlterEgo]

If they hold your connection, then all that does is delay passengers on the second train and leave them more open to the scenarios you described.

 

[Lincoln]

Holding connections is always a balanace. As AlterEgo says it could delay the next working meaning more connections are missed.

Also it depends on the need to hold a connection to actually be communicated. If there’s a late inbound train; then unless it is known that there are any passengers with connections to be made, then trains won’t be held in any event.

Platforming would also have to be done to accommodate the train without causing any conflicts and delays to other services. Although sometimes own goals are made.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

My complaint was primarily about inconsiderate platforming

 

[Spartacus]

Last train connections are usually kept, and the worst that usually happens is that you'll end up in a taxi paid for by whichever company is involved. In the case of Chester I'd say getting 6 minutes to change trains shouldn't be a problem.

As for York, the 1829 Edinburgh - KX couldn't go in platform 3 as there was the Newcastle - Birmingham Cross Country booked in platform 3 behind it, and switching platforms at late notice would have meant that all passengers at York for both services would have had to cross the bridge or subway with just a few minutes to spare before their trains arrived. The Cross Country would also then be stood in platform 5 while the next Scarborough service was waiting outside of York station to get into platform 5, so messing things up for anyone on there for Northbound services. You could also have had passengers for the Liverpool on the Cross Country who would have had a tighter connection who found themselves further away from the train they wanted. So, at least 4 sets of passengers inconvenienced in preference to one set.

 

[mallard]

The real problem is that the published minmum connection times are absurdly short and are basically invented to make journeys seem faster than they really are.

Even when everything's running "on time" a "5 minute" connection is realistically more like 3 minutes (train doors don't open immediately as the train stops and often close up to a minute before published departure times, delays of less than ~2 minutes are usually still counted as "on time"). Basically impossible unless it's a cross-platform (or same platform) interchange for anyone except a fully able passenger with no luggage who's familiar with the station and willing to run.

Ideally, minimum connection times at any staiton with more than a single (island) platform would be at least 10 minutes and timetables would be designed accordingly to ensure good connections. In reality, different TOCs rarely collaborate on timetables and being able to quote fast journey times in marketing matters far more than actually making things convinient for passengers.

 

[MarkyT]

I can't remember precise dates and times but it was a busy late summer Sunday afternoon about a decade ago when the three platforms at Newton Abbot were struggling to cope as usual and a late running down FGW express had been put into platform #3 for some reason. With the other two platforms also occupied, the up steam hauled Torbay Express could not pass through the station and was held at the branch home at Newton Abbot West. I was on the following branch local train which was thus held back behind the steam at Torre. Things eventually all got moving again after about ten minutes, but my connection at Newton Abbot was now looking very dicey. The guard announced over the PA that he had contacted NA and asked them to hold the Paddington train if possble, as the vast majority on the branch train were in fact due to make that connection. We rolled into #2 almost exactly at the booked departure time of the express, and I was heartened to see the HST still stationary in platform #3. The guards message clearly never got through to the right person or was ignored however as, after a headlong dash over the bridge, my foot had barely hit the platform when I saw the baton go up right in front of me and heard the clunk of the central locking. A steady stream of about 40 people were at this point descending the staircase and staring incredulously as the train pulled out very gingerly on a yellow aspect following immediately behind the steam excursion. After the precise right time departure it then went on to lose nearly ten minutes to Exeter as it followed the steam. I must say I had to seriously bite my tongue to avoid venting my anger at the platform dispatcher... A wait of about an hour for the next London service ensued and if that wasn't enough to ruin the day, it was a through train from Cornwall and was already standing room only! So in this case not directly a signalling issue with the allocation of platforms but a reaction from an earlier regulating decision, and a very poor station dispatch decision. After I'd calmed down a bit I did approach the dispatcher and ask politely about his actions. His only response was that he personally couldn't be expected to know about what's happening on other platforms, so in the absence of any orders to the contrary he had just followed normal right time procedure.

 

[Spartacus]

In both these cases I think the connection time was 12 minutes, only made shorter due to late running.

I can't recall seeing any operators marketing journey times that include connections, the only time I ever seem to see it is when booking tickets. When I'm looking online I often find that the short connections, even within recommended times, are omitted, and most online journey planners have some sort of 'extended connections' option now. The trouble is that if you have minimum connections that are too long you're going to have lots of people sat around stations for a long time waiting for their connection watching trains to their destination depart,

 

[Bletchleyite]

The real problem is that the published minmum connection times are absurdly short and are basically invented to make journeys seem faster than they really are.

I would agree. Realistically at a smallish station 10 minutes is more realistic, 15 at a larger one like New St, and I will usually avoid ending up with 5 minutes as far as I can.

There are connections that work as 5 minutes, such as ones that for reasons of infrastructure can't be other than cross- or same-platform, though.

What it all needs is a bit of proper planning.....dare I use the T[1] word?

[1] Taktfahrplan, which is not just a clockface timetable but one with planned, co-ordinated connections.

 

[Spartacus]

New Street's 12 minutes, so not far off, York's 8 and Chester and Newton Abbot are both 5.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New Street's 12 minutes, so not far off, York's 8 and Chester and Newton Abbot are both 5.

Is the issue really that unless it's the same platform or the same island 5 is too short for anywhere?

Should the standard perhaps be 10, then, with specific exceptions made both up and down? 10 is enough at most simple stations.

 

[Robertj21a]

Perhaps we should all just get fitter.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps we should all just get fitter.....

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. It would be interesting to see if increasing it to 10 would reduce the amount of that and thus the amount of slips, trips etc.

 

[Senex]

Ideally, minimum connection times at any staiton with more than a single (island) platform would be at least 10 minutes and timetables would be designed accordingly to ensure good connections.

Both the connections referred to by Old Yard Dog were more than 10 minutes, and even at York 10 minutes is more than adequate for a slow person to make the worst possible connection (from the back of a full-length train arriving in 10/11 to a Scarborough train on 4). The problem in his cases was the late running and in the Chester case the signal-stop outside the station. Many of us have learnt to be very distrustful of connections in this country because late running is in our experience so very common. But the more casual traveller will probably take the journey-planner advice he has been given at face value and expect connections to work. And where the railway stuffs up on an advertised connection instead of just taking the attitude rather implied by some of the comments above that it's fine just to tell a passenger, "Well, go and sit in the cold, there's another train in an hour's time", then it should take responsibility for the situation and look after those affected much better than it does. In the end, as Bletchleyite says, it's the T-word that's the solution—a proper national timetable where the railway works as a system and not just as a string of independent lines.

 

[radamfi]

In both these cases I think the connection time was 12 minutes, only made shorter due to late running.

I can't recall seeing any operators marketing journey times that include connections, the only time I ever seem to see it is when booking tickets. When I'm looking online I often find that the short connections, even within recommended times, are omitted, and most online journey planners have some sort of 'extended connections' option now. The trouble is that if you have minimum connections that are too long you're going to have lots of people sat around stations for a long time waiting for their connection watching trains to their destination depart,

Britain has long been particularly poor regarding connections compared to other countries. This has been mitigated to an extent by running trains frequently but even waiting 25 minutes between trains can make the journey unattractive compared with the equivalent car journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Britain has long been particularly poor regarding connections compared to other countries. This has been mitigated to an extent by running trains frequently but even waiting 25 minutes between trains can make the journey unattractive compared with the equivalent car journey.

Sort-of-depends. I usually aim for about 20-30 minutes somewhere like Manchester Piccadilly, this allows for a bit of delay slack and time to go and get a coffee, use the loo etc (and buy food if it's lunch/dinner time) and board in a leisurely manner before departure if the train starts there. But I don't want to be standing at a small station in the middle of nowhere with no facilities for that long.

 

[Spartacus]

Britain has long been particularly poor regarding connections compared to other countries. This has been mitigated to an extent by running trains frequently but even waiting 25 minutes between trains can make the journey unattractive compared with the equivalent car journey.

Britain's "problem" is that it has so many places with connections, and so many with multiple connections possible so that someone is ALWAYS going to be left with a tight connection or an overly long one. As I've said in the York example, altering things to favour one trainload of passengers would have the effect of making things worse for four trainloads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Britain's "problem" is that it has so many places with connections, and so many with multiple connections possible so that someone is ALWAYS going to be left with a tight connection or an overly long one.

DB is hardly a less complicated system and it manages to plan more sensibly.

 

[radamfi]

Britain's "problem" is that it has so many places with connections, and so many with multiple connections possible so that someone is ALWAYS going to be left with a tight connection or an overly long one. As I've said in the York example, altering things to favour one trainload of passengers would have the effect of making things worse for four trainloads.

Same could be said for Switzerland and the Netherlands but the Swiss in particular have made planned connections into an art form. Yes, it can mean prolonged dwell times, but it means that many more journeys can be made without long connection times. So people can make journeys involving connections with confidence, which is one of the reasons why they have such high patronage levels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Same could be said for Switzerland and the Netherlands but the Swiss in particular have made planned connections into an art form. Yes, it can mean prolonged dwell times, but it means that many more journeys can be made without long connection times. So people can make journeys involving connections with confidence, which is one of the reasons why they have such high patronage levels.

This does have a downside, which is that because they typically operate low frequencies and there often is not catering on-board, if you want a coffee you have a choice between a 2 minute connection and a 1hr 2min connection, the latter being too long.

 

[Spartacus]

DB is hardly a less complicated system and it manages to plan more sensibly.

Do they though, I wouldn't fancy the 6 minute connection time I was quoted at Frankfurt, somewhere like that in Britain you'd normally have at least 10.

Seems to be going a bit OT about connection times and frequencies abroad, especially when the thread started with two adequate connection times, only made tight by late running.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they though, I wouldn't fancy the 6 minute connection time I was quoted at Frankfurt, somewhere like that in Britain you'd normally have at least 10.

The difference with DB is that the connection will probably be held, and on your incoming train the platforms etc will be announced[1] just before arrival (do they even still do the "Ihr Reiseplan" leaflet at every seat showing them?). I've noticed some UK guards using RTT (or internal equivalent) to do this at times, but it isn't universal. It would strike me as something an autoannouncer could easily be set up to do and should be on near enough every long distance train.

[1] "Meine Damen und Herren, wir erreichen jetzt Frankfurt-am-Main Hauptbahnhof. Ihre naechsten Reisemoeglichkeiten. InterCityExpress ueber Koeln Hauptbahnhof nach Berlin Hauptbahnhof, 13:02 auf Gleis 2. Regionalbahn nach Wuppertal Hauptbahnhof, 13:04 auf Gleis 4. Leider wird der Anschluss auf dem InterCity nach Mainz um 12:55 nicht erreicht; bitte Ansagen beachten fuer moeglichen Alternativen...."

(List of made-up connections, stick it in Google Translate if you like, including the typical announcement made for a connection *not* being held - they would arrange in advance and confirm if it was).

 

[radamfi]

This does have a downside, which is that because they typically operate low frequencies

It depends what you call "low frequency". In most of the country you can expect a half hour frequency or better. Not many routes outside remote areas run worse than hourly.

The Dutch run a Swiss style service at high frequency with short dwell times, but means they aren't as punctual as the Swiss. They are rolling out a 10 minute service between most major towns, but they are getting it in the neck from certain quarters because that means worse connections, even though clearly the connection time is no worse than 10 minutes.

 

[Spartacus]

No doubt you'd get people moaning like hell if they did make regular platform connection announcements and the platform of their connection was changed at the last minute, but it is a good idea. You'd also have the 'too many announcements already' complaints too, but that could be solved by cutting down on the unnecessary repeats, which isn't just a British problem either. On one Dutch service I would almost have been able to recite part of it after just one journey and not speaking a word of the language!

 

[fusionblue]

Perhaps we should all just get fitter.....

So lets test that. You are in the middle Blackfriars platform 1 and need to get a 4-car train leaving in 3-5 minutes on platform 3. Do you think you could make that?

 

[TheAlbanach_]

Edinburgh Waverley minimum connection time is 10 mins, even though this isn't enough. Try making it from the end of platform 8/9 to 18 using lifts and after a London train has arrived on 8 so you've got to queue for the lift too. Connections needs to be viable, but also attractive to keep people on trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On one Dutch service I would almost have been able to recite part of it after just one journey and not speaking a word of the language!

That's why I could recite the DB one I did above!

 

[Robertj21a]

So lets test that. You are in the middle Blackfriars platform 1 and need to get a 4-car train leaving in 3-5 minutes on platform 3. Do you think you could make that?

As I don't know Blackfriars, I can't say one way or other. In any event, I wouldn't have attempted any 3-5 minute connection, anywhere.

 

[zoneking]

There are some stations in the busy Southeast that have a regular service of 2 hourly (Eg Betchworth, Dorking est, Gomshall, Chilworth). So a missed connection (usually from the Southern network) results in a wait of two hours. GWR never hold to wait for connections. Timing made even worse if the train is at Platform 1a at Redhill. This happened to me once - I missed a connection because my train was late.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends what you call "low frequency". In most of the country you can expect a half hour frequency or better. Not many routes outside remote areas run worse than hourly.

The Dutch run a Swiss style service at high frequency with short dwell times, but means they aren't as punctual as the Swiss. They are rolling out a 10 minute service between most major towns, but they are getting it in the neck from certain quarters because that means worse connections, even though clearly the connection time is no worse than 10 minutes.

If you genuinely are operating those kinds of frequencies, you can ignore connections because it will never be worse than 10 minutes. Having said that, don't underestimate just how rubbish it looks if the train opposite departs just as yours opens its doors, and how good it looks when two trains arrive into the opposite sides of an island platform with perfect timing. The Hamburg U-Bahn has a couple of stations where even on a 5-minute peak service frequency connections are done flawlessly - both trains arrive and depart at near enough precisely the same second, interchange passengers both ways and head off on their way. Even on the Tube, drivers are I believe instructed not to depart if they see a train just arriving in the other platform at...where is it...the one with a cross platform connection onto the Central Line...is it Mile End?

But if you break that high frequency service by having things like Advance tickets, or different stopping patterns (think the VTWC London-Manchester service), you go back where you were.