Minimum connection times - National Rail Conditions of Carriage 25(d)

[infobleep]

Its sloppy wording, but I also believe that the intended meaning is to use 5 minutes if there is no specified minimum connection time in the NRT.

One that I've learnt not to rely on is the 3 minutes allowed at Norwood Junction. Given that trains through East Croydon usually depart slightly late, National Rail's 06:04 ex-Purley itinerary for my commute to London Bridge is usually impossible. I'd support raising the minimum connection time at this station.

Also, why do some slow people with luggage or whatnot who have all the time in the world insist on exiting at the best door and then causing a blockage in subways and on staircases. Let faster people past first!

Fascinating how that is 3 minutes, yet at Aldershot it is 4 minutes. If it were 3 minutes at Aldershot then people would officially be able to catch the train that pulls in just after it. Thus officially cutting their journey time down a reasonable amount. I quoted the times further up.

I find 5 minutes at Woking is fine off peak but for certain peak trains that can get held up by late running stopping services, it's not enough. However that's not every day and shouldn't minimum connection times be about the most common thing?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Precisely.

Although some train operators insist that the minimum connection times at stations they manage be set at a figure to 'cater for the less mobile' (elderly, disabled, lots of luggage, etc.), these still aren't long enough for many of these passengers (especially wheelchair users or slow walkers) and yet these train operators provide no ability for passengers to request longer connection times when booking tickets online or over the phone! On the other hand, the minimum connection times these train operators set do have the consequence of lengthening journey times for commuters (particularly those reliant on 'Advance' tickets, for which there is usually an obligation to wait for the booked connecting train).

This gives the impression that these train operators couldn't care less about assisting inexperienced or vulnerable passengers, and that their main concern is to forbid connections that may regularly be missed because of poor reliability. For example, compare the minimum connection times at VTWC-operated stations (Crewe [10], Carlisle [8], Preston [8], Wolverhampton [7]) with the minimum connection times at comparably complex stations along the same route which are managed by other train operators (Chester [5 - ATW], Milton Keynes [5 - LM], Watford Junction [5 - LM]). Speaking for myself, I don't find Crewe, which in its current set-up is actually quite a compact station, as difficult to navigate as Manchester Piccadilly or, worse, Clapham Junction (both of which also have minimum connection times of 10 minutes).

You could also compare a GWR-managed station (Bristol Parkway [7]), which has only three platforms, with an ATW-managed station (Newport [5]), which has four platforms. The Newport minimum connection time is optimistic, but useful nonetheless for regular passengers.

The best example I have of a station with a minimum connection time which caters for commuters is Stratford. A labyrinth, with an eye-watering number of passengers (for the entire station complex, well over quadruple that of Manchester Piccadilly or Clapham Junction). And the minimum connection time is...

...7 minutes!

Of course some stations and multiple connection times. At Gatwick it's 5 minutes from one Southern train to another. But should you consider coming off or joining a Great Western Railway service, it suddenly becomes 10 minutes. Needless to say the GWR service departs from platform 2 mostly, which is also one of the platforms used by Southern. So getting from platform to 1-2 is just as difficult no matter which TOC one uses.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In these days of journey planners and phone apps, I can't help but feel that Minimum Connection Times could be a little more "intelligent"

E.g. at Crewe, a standard value of 8 minutes applies to all connections, which is fair enough for interchanging between Platform 3 and Platform 10, for example.

However, one could comfortably make a 3-4 minute connection between Platforms 1 and 5 for example. However currently the 8 minutes rules out some otherwise comfortable journey opportunities being shown in journey planners.

So is there an opportunity for 'variable' minimum connection times, depending upon the booked platforms of the services being connected between? It could even be variable based on the likelihood of a platform alteration or inward delay to a particular service. Surely not beyond the wit of some whizzy journey planner coding?

Indeed not, though it would require a lot of data with regard to track layouts for which certain platform alterations are impossible. But there do exist these connections - for instance, from the 1816 EUS-NMP onto the Southern to MKC, a one minute connection would be perfectly adequate, as operationally the Southern will always be held unless the fast is *very* late.

I guess it would be possible to move away from the number of minutes and build a database of confidence values in particular connections to feed the planners, though you'd still need an outline "definitely OK" cut-off time for each station for those not using planners.

I think they are both great ideas. I've often though basing it on now close a platform is. For example 1-2 minutes to get from platform 12 to 11 at Clapham Junction is fine. 10 minutes is overkill.

If you wish to allow for trains being late then find the average delay across several years or the current year and set the mimum to that + 1 to 2 minutes.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[bb21]

All these ideas are fine until there is a last-minute platform change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All these ideas are fine until there is a last-minute platform change.

Part of the confidence would mean identifying which platform changes are likely or indeed physically impossible. For example, a train from Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool Lime St cannot depart from any platform other than 13 and 14. Therefore, a connection between a Manchester Airport to Blackpool train and a Norwich to Liverpool train has relatively high confidence (not 100% as one might terminate short, but near 100%), because neither can use any platform other than the same one as the other, and then only either 13 or 14. This might be even better in the other direction - if arriving at Picc from Liverpool you can *only* arrive on 13 or 14 unless the service is outright cancelled.

It's basically a big-data AI problem.

The other thing you could do is identify trains that *often* experience platform alterations and give them a low confidence, thus trying to avoid them in planners or connect at a different station. You might, for instance, tend away from connecting at New St if you can instead connect at International or Wolverhampton. Or you might assign a low confidence to connections off services that are statistically unpunctual.

But that involves thinking about a railway network, not a collection of services...

 

[notlob.divad]

To be honest I would rather they focused on sorting out the timetable so that sensible connections are possible. For example:

Saturday nights at Wigan North Western.
WTT 2304 Preston 4 1F05 NT Liverpool Lime Street 2305
VAR 2305 London Euston 5 1P07 VT Preston 2305

and the equivalent on a Sunday
WTT 2329 Blackpool North 4 2F63 NT Liverpool Lime Street 2331
VAR 2334 London Euston 5 1P06 VT Preston 2334

Why does the last stopping train to Liverpool leave at the same time / 3 minutes before, the last arrival up the WCML thus making it impossible to change. For the sake of holding the Liverpool train for a handful of minutes, it would mean there is another opportunity to make the through journey.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think it's asking for trouble to allow such a variable time, too many things have the potential to go wrong (even if each has a very slim chance of doing so). Remember that in a lot of cases, people are going to skimp on connection times to shorten the journey ("oh I don't want to wait 70 minutes because of a 15 minute recommended connection, I'll just change it to 5 minutes, I'm sure that'll be fine at New Street anyway"), and then blame staff (possibly aggressively) when it doesn't work out, and perhaps even chase compensation for the delay caused.

 

[infobleep]

I think it's asking for trouble to allow such a variable time, too many things have the potential to go wrong (even if each has a very slim chance of doing so). Remember that in a lot of cases, people are going to skimp on connection times to shorten the journey ("oh I don't want to wait 70 minutes because of a 15 minute recommended connection, I'll just change it to 5 minutes, I'm sure that'll be fine at New Street anyway"), and then blame staff (possibly aggressively) when it doesn't work out, and perhaps even chase compensation for the delay caused.

Well if that is the case, why is the connection time in some cases as low as 3 minutes? Isn't that asking for trouble?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[jayah]

In these days of journey planners and phone apps, I can't help but feel that Minimum Connection Times could be a little more "intelligent"

E.g. at Crewe, a standard value of 8 minutes applies to all connections, which is fair enough for interchanging between Platform 3 and Platform 10, for example.

However, one could comfortably make a 3-4 minute connection between Platforms 1 and 5 for example. However currently the 8 minutes rules out some otherwise comfortable journey opportunities being shown in journey planners.

So is there an opportunity for 'variable' minimum connection times, depending upon the booked platforms of the services being connected between? It could even be variable based on the likelihood of a platform alteration or inward delay to a particular service. Surely not beyond the wit of some whizzy journey planner coding?

The trouble is that much of the platforming is fairly nominal at the very stations in question. For this reason platforming is generally not shown on journey planners.

In Switzerland the timetable is the same every hour. The stock is usually the same and therefore not only is platforming the same but you can have smart connections, although connections are also a PPM measure so they tend to hold them.

Imagine if the standard hourly connection pattern e.g. London -Leeds - Skipton were only advertised in the fairly random hours the down London used Platforms 1-6 at Leeds!

You could probably code a journey planner easily based on booked platforms once you have decided how long the platform to platform walks take, but the TOCs will wash their hands as soon as a late night taxi enters the equation.

 

[The Planner]

Define nominal?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well if that is the case, why is the connection time in some cases as low as 3 minutes? Isn't that asking for trouble?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Places with 3 minutes tend to be quite small stations, or where you'd normally be staying on the same platform for a large majority of connecting trains (City Thameslink, Bourne End, etc). Larger stations tend to have longer connection times. If they didn't believe the majority of people could make those connection times they wouldn't be so low.

 

[infobleep]

Places with 3 minutes tend to be quite small stations, or where you'd normally be staying on the same platform for a large majority of connecting trains (City Thameslink, Bourne End, etc). Larger stations tend to have longer connection times. If they didn't believe the majority of people could make those connection times they wouldn't be so low.

Interesting point.

So at Norwood Junction, which is 3 minutes, are people more likely to be staying on the same platform, than at Aldershot which is 4 minutes? Does anyone know?

I don't know the number of platforms at Norwood Junction. Aldershot is 3.

On this basis, one would either expect Surbiton to have more platforms than East Croydon or Woking. Or for people to be more likely to change there than at East Croydon or Woking, as the minimum time is 6 minutes vers 5 at the other two. It of course has less platforms than the other two stations so that reason is ruled out. I don't know how many change platforms vers the other two, which are also stations near or at junctions like Surbiton.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[gsnedders]

Two things tend to aggravate me when it comes to MCTs:

Firstly, the fact that it's impossible to book a connection shorter than the minimum. I'd happily book a connection shorter than the minimum, even if I got a huge red screen telling me that any delay as a result of failure to meet the connection was my problem.

Secondly, the fact that large stations with disparate platforms that operationally will never, ever get mixed (Glasgow Central High Level and Glasgow Central Low Level, for example) have a single connection time which has to be long enough to get from High Level to Low Level (or vice-versa) but is excessive for any connection within High Level or Low Level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a walk up ticket you can, albeit without reservations - just take the trains you choose (pick times that give you reservations on the busiest leg). With Advances would you be happy to purchase a new ticket if the connection was missed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kieron]

Network Rail dont specify them, the TOCs do in the TPR, we just publish them.

Who decides what they are for stations managed by Network Rail?
For that matter, who chooses it for Liverpool Lime Street?

Of course some stations and multiple connection times. At Gatwick it's 5 minutes from one Southern train to another. But should you consider coming off or joining a Great Western Railway service, it suddenly becomes 10 minutes.

You may be interested to know that the National Rail Timetable shows something quite different. It doesn't refer to the operator at all, but instead shows a connection time of 10 minutes on timetables 52 and 148, and a 5 minute one on the other timetables which list the station.

This means that there's a valid 5 minute connection at Gatwick between the 21:34 from Reading and the 22:33 from Brighton to Bedford. You'd need to have appropriate tickets, of course.

Secondly, the fact that large stations with disparate platforms that operationally will never, ever get mixed (Glasgow Central High Level and Glasgow Central Low Level, for example) have a single connection time which has to be long enough to get from High Level to Low Level (or vice-versa) but is excessive for any connection within High Level or Low Level.

I think I'm right in saying that the system used for it only allow different interchange times to be set in terms of different TOCs. If Scotrail use both levels, the connection time can't distinguish between them.

This is a limitation of the system, but I don't know if TOCs have estimated how much revenue they lose from passengers being put off by long connection times. If not, or if they don't think they lose much from it, they may not have much interest in making transfer times reflect actual transfer times more accurately.

 

[gsnedders]

With a walk up ticket you can, albeit without reservations - just take the trains you choose (pick times that give you reservations on the busiest leg). With Advances would you be happy to purchase a new ticket if the connection was missed?

I'd expect some allowance for a late incoming train‚ but in principle yes.

 

[Deepgreen]

Interesting point.

So at Norwood Junction, which is 3 minutes, are people more likely to be staying on the same platform, than at Aldershot which is 4 minutes? Does anyone know?

I don't know the number of platforms at Norwood Junction. Aldershot is 3.

On this basis, one would either expect Surbiton to have more platforms than East Croydon or Woking. Or for people to be more likely to change there than at East Croydon or Woking, as the minimum time is 6 minutes vers 5 at the other two. It of course has less platforms than the other two stations so that reason is ruled out. I don't know how many change platforms vers the other two, which are also stations near or at junctions like Surbiton.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Norwood Junction has 6 platforms, although platform 2 is no longer used, being a face adjoining the same track as served by platform 1.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Norwood Junction has 6 platforms, although platform 2 is no longer used, being a face adjoining the same track as served by platform 1.

There are still 6 platforms although I don't know how often 7 is used. I believe most connections are same platform (1) or crossing an island platform (4 and 5), though trains do irregularly call at 3 and 6. Despite the level of service there, I expect most connections between trains are actually made at East Croydon instead. Some passengers on London Overground might wish to change to or from Southern services into/out of London Bridge, but these can be made at other stations using same platform connections.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does the last stopping train to Liverpool leave at the same time / 3 minutes before, the last arrival up the WCML thus making it impossible to change. For the sake of holding the Liverpool train for a handful of minutes, it would mean there is another opportunity to make the through journey.

Why would you not change at Wigan instead?

Indeed, a change at Preston would not be a Permitted Route as it's a double-back.

 

[jayah]

Define nominal?

Existing in name only. As per the dictionary. Which is why no journey planner I have seen ever in the UK shows them.

I have spotted a number of occasions where the booked platforming was impossible even if the trains were all running on time.

If you need an example, the recent Plymouth incident highlighted more than one train not using their booked platforms despite running on time and this is far from unusual at many stations.

 

[infobleep]

With a walk up ticket you can, albeit without reservations - just take the trains you choose (pick times that give you reservations on the busiest leg). With Advances would you be happy to purchase a new ticket if the connection was missed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The thing you can't do it do an end to end search. The number of times I have to look up each leg of a journey because I wish to get somewhere more quickly than it suggests.

For example if u have 5 minutes at Gatwick Airport, I can easily make the 3 minutes passed the hour service to Guildford.

Thus means I can catch the 44 minutes past service from Haywards Heath.

If however I choose the official times I have to leave at 16.26 because that is the time of the previous train that stops at Gatwick Airport. So I save myself 18 minutes.

Isn't that the same or more than the saving of the times from Paddington to Cardiff when they finish electrifying the line. Originally they were selling that electrifying on speeding up rail journey times!

In fact National Rail Enquiries use to officially suggest going to Burgess Hill and then up to Gatwick Airport and then onto Guildford as that was 2 minutes quicker than going from Haywards Heath to Gatwick Airport onto Guildford. However since the December timetable that is no longer officially the case.

I continue to travel using the unofficial times though.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You may be interested to know that the National Rail Timetable shows something quite different. It doesn't refer to the operator at all, but instead shows a connection time of 10 minutes on timetables 52 and 148, and a 5 minute one on the other timetables which list the station.

This means that there's a valid 5 minute connection at Gatwick between the 21:34 from Reading and the 22:33 from Brighton to Bedford. You'd need to have appropriate tickets, of course.

Thanks. I did not know that. That then best the western, why does timetable 52 and 148 need to be 10 minutes and the others only 5?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are still 6 platforms although I don't know how often 7 is used. I believe most connections are same platform (1) or crossing an island platform (4 and 5), though trains do irregularly call at 3 and 6. Despite the level of service there, I expect most connections between trains are actually made at East Croydon instead. Some passengers on London Overground might wish to change to or from Southern services into/out of London Bridge, but these can be made at other stations using same platform connections.

I wonder if people at Aldershot use the footbridge or subway more than at Norwood Junction then?

1 minute doesn't seem like much but it is when journey planners then don't suggest an itinerary and think your best bet, in terms of time, is to travel to one station, walk for 10 minutes to another station and then catch another train.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[The Planner]

Who decides what they are for stations managed by Network Rail?
For that matter, who chooses it for Liverpool Lime Street?

You have partly answered that yourself, we manage the station, the connection time is agreed by the TOCs themselves as per any other station.

 

[Ianno87]

Existing in name only. As per the dictionary. Which is why no journey planner I have seen ever in the UK shows them.

I have spotted a number of occasions where the booked platforming was impossible even if the trains were all running on time.

If you need an example, the recent Plymouth incident highlighted more than one train not using their booked platforms despite running on time and this is far from unusual at many stations.

Yes, there will be many stations where the planned platforming plan is too unreliable to sensibly advertise bespoke platform X to platform Y connection times.

But conversely there may be stations (not necessarily many) where both the platforming plan *and* the arrival time of trains is sufficiently consistent that these could be advertised.

My point is that some clever coding (potentially *very* clever) could pick out these particular combinations of trains/platforms that are sufficiently reliable to advertise. A basic algorithm:
-Pick inward train "A"
-For any outward train "B" that satisfies the MCT, advertise the connection
-For any outward train "B" that offers a connection time of at least 1 minute but less than the MCT:
-----Is a connection physically possible between the two trains in their planned platforms given distance needed to travel? If no, reject
-----If Yes, Does Train A arrive sufficiently far ahead of Train B on consistently many occasions (let's say 95% of historic occurences) that this sub-standard connection can physically expected to be made most of the time. If yes, go to next step
-----Do train A and Train B arrive on platforms whose minimum physical connection time is equal to or less than that for their ordinarily booked platforms for at least 95% of historic occurences? If so, advertise the connection.

The above ligic works assuming that the timetabled platforming plan is in itself rules-compliant.

 

[The Planner]

I have spotted a number of occasions where the booked platforming was impossible even if the trains were all running on time.

If you need an example, the recent Plymouth incident highlighted more than one train not using their booked platforms despite running on time and this is far from unusual at many stations.

Like to see some if possible as the platforming is carried out as part of the planning process. Not sure that Plymouth is a good example as you are assuming that the circumstances behind that would have been put in a STP bid.

 

[Ianno87]

To emphasise my point further (sorry!), there will be a minority of occasions where even connections complying with the full MCT will not be made, due to late arriving of the inward leg of the connection.

The above logic intends to pick out additional connectional opportunities that are inherently no more unreliable than more elaborate cross-station connections that require the full MCT.

 

[infobleep]

To emphasise my point further (sorry!), there will be a minority of occasions where even connections complying with the full MCT will not be made, due to late arriving of the inward leg of the connection.

The above logic intends to pick out additional connectional opportunities that are inherently no more unreliable than more elaborate cross-station connections that require the full MCT.

Getting a train from Hastings to Gatwick and another onto Guildford, with its unofficial 9 minute connection time is more reliable than a train to Tonbridge and other to Redhill then I was informed the trains to Tonbridge are not so reliable and the mimum connection time is 5 minutes. This was pre platform 7 at Gatwick so they would only have changed from platform 4 to 3, which is the same island.

Other opportunities exist from Gatwick to Guildford but Tonbridge to Redhill is only hourly!

Just one example where an unofficial connection was better than the given official one.

As it was there was disruption on that day so my friends got delayed. However they still took another train to Redhill. 0n most days I wouldn't expect disruption to be over 6 minutes, making it possible if it's an island connection. Now you have to go to platform 2 mostly so it isn't. However it's still possible in under 5 minutes in my opinion.

Less so with heavy bags but that's also the car at East Croydon, which I'd set at 5 minutes.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[QueensCurve]

Where short connections are possible it's unlikely that missing a connection is going to result in a delay long enough to trigger compensation. In practical terms passengers are of course free, unless otherwise restricted, to make whatever connection they want. Just don't run down stairs because when that goes wrong it's horrible.

Taking no account of those of us how have a lifetime experience running down stairs, mountains, etc without ever having "gone wrong" in a "horrible" way.

Moreover it takes no account of there being situations (eg Crewe P5 > P4 or P3) where platforms are adjacent and no stairs are involved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do the journey planners take into account the station layout?

In short, no.

As in the example above of, say, Crewe P5 to P3, there is no reason why a 2 minute connection should not be possible.

Of course if you are on the Virgin which should arrive in P5 at xx:57 trying to get the yy:02 to Alsager, Kidsgrove, Stoke or Stone that should, whatever the published connection times are, be an easily achievable connection.

Of course the Virgin as often as not doesn't get in until xx:03 and you have missed it. You are denied "delay repay" since the connection time is disallowed.

Then London Midland keep the set locked after it arrives at yy:24 and you can't get on untill about zz:00. Just after you have got on you see the virgin arrival for yy:57 get in with time to spare.

This infuriates me. The purpose of cross platform interchanges is, amongst other things, to enable tight connections. Trains should be punctual enough to make them possible and the "minimum connecting time" should recognise it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In practice I find that 5 minutes is insufficient not to be stressful at almost all stations except where the connection is same-platform or same-island. For me as an expert rail user I prefer 10, for novice rail users my recommendation would tend towards 15 or even 20.

But the stress should be alieviated by ensuring, in so far as reasonably practicable, same island departures for tight connections and on-time running at intermediate stations for the trains.

Also, I no it is unfashionable, but there should be agreement between TOCs of maximum holding times for connections. Perhaps this in turn requires an agreement to waive TOC on TOC delay attribution.

Take the case of the connection out of the Virgin Glasgow to Euston at warrington (xx:20) into the Manchester to North Wales (xx:26) This should be reliably achievable in the Arriva Trenau Cymru Generally make up time to Chester even when they leave Warrington late. The sensible way to manage this would be to ensure that the Arriva is always routed into P1 (it can depart on the Up Helsby line in parralel with the Virgo) and held until the Virgin is arrives with an announcement to make the way quickly across the platform for the connection.

I know TOCs don't cooperate over these things, but the customer doesn't care about who the TOC is, they just want to make the journey without wasting an hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But do watch out for the effect of holding of connections - DB's punctuality issues are often noted in here, and when they are it's worth pointing out that they are one effect of holding connections - by the end of the day the entire system ends up 20 minutes late.

 

[maniacmartin]

Also beware that a result of wanting connections held is more padding in the timetable

 

[infobleep]

If an island exists when surely it's purpose isn't for cross platform changes but for one train to go where it needs to and the other to do the same in the direct it needs to go. The fact one can make an easier connection is just a bonus.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Haywain]

Taking no account of those of us how have a lifetime experience running down stairs, mountains, etc without ever having "gone wrong" in a "horrible" way.

There's always a first time. And it isn't usually funny.

This infuriates me. The purpose of cross platform interchanges is, amongst other things, to enable tight connections. Trains should be punctual enough to make them possible and the "minimum connecting time" should recognise it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But the stress should be alieviated by ensuring, in so far as reasonably practicable, same island departures for tight connections and on-time running at intermediate stations for the trains.

The purpose of cross platform interchange is operational convenience, in terms of making best use of the available resources. And in most cases where it exists in one direction it fails to exist in the opposite direction.

Also, I no it is unfashionable, but there should be agreement between TOCs of maximum holding times for connections. Perhaps this in turn requires an agreement to waive TOC on TOC delay attribution.

The main reason that connections are not held is due to the knock on impact of doing so. Holding a connection on an outbound branch service or cross country service may well result in a missed connection on the inbound branch service or at a further point of the cross country service. This would only be alleviated by having more trains, more staff, more infrastructure and longer connection times. A bit of Delay Repay and the odd taxi work out a lot cheaper in the long run.

 

[infobleep]

There's always a first time. And it isn't usually funny.

The purpose of cross platform interchange is operational convenience, in terms of making best use of the available resources. And in most cases where it exists in one direction it fails to exist in the opposite direction.

The main reason that connections are not held is due to the knock on impact of doing so. Holding a connection on an outbound branch service or cross country service may well result in a missed connection on the inbound branch service or at a further point of the cross country service. This would only be alleviated by having more trains, more staff, more infrastructure and longer connection times. A bit of Delay Repay and the odd taxi work out a lot cheaper in the long run.

The problem is getting a taxi. I couple of people got stuck at Chilworth in recent Saturday when the train was cancelled. Next one in 2 hours. They pressed the help point and the person with an Asian accent said they would try and get hold of nation control. 15 minutes later they still hadn't been able to get hold of anyone. Someone else gave them a lift in the end.

Not sure if they ever got back to them or not as they eventually took someone's mobile number.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk