Shutting doors while passengers are boarding - how low can EMT sink?

[Flamingo]

This point is irrelevant as lateness isn't like that. You can't add together the lateness of several people and get some number that has any meaning in reality so the aim should be to minimise the delay to an individual. I'm not less or more late if there are fewer or more people on my train, so it is better to delay a train of 500 people by three minutes if it saves a single person an hour.

The law of averages says that the more people delayed, the greater the chance a number of them will be seriously inconvenienced.

Some days it might not be important - some days it might.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

This point is irrelevant as lateness isn't like that. You can't add together the lateness of several people and get some number that has any meaning in reality so the aim should be to minimise the delay to an individual. I'm not less or more late if there are fewer or more people on my train, so it is better to delay a train of 500 people by three minutes if it saves a single person an hour.

Try telling that to the people on board.

"Sorry for the delay leaving today, we are waiting for a potential person to potentially turn up late from another train that has been delayed on it's way to this station, but isn't actually an official connecting service. Those with quite tight totally valid connections need not worry because you'll be able to get the next connecting train should you miss it. Thank you for travelling with...."

 

[najaB]

The law of averages says that the more people delayed, the greater the chance a number of them will be seriously inconvenienced.

Indeed. One definitely delayed passenger is a better situation to be in than than 500 people potentially delayed.

 

[MichaelAMW]

So they were right not to delay the train to wait for the passengers off the late train.

I've no idea! All I'm saying is that a potential small delay to a full train is not, by itself, a reason not to wait for one person who would otherwise be heavily delayed.

In fact, having said I've no idea, I would say that at a busy station where trains are arriving every few minutes you are faced with the problem that everything can't connect with everything, so you have to draw the line somewhere, which the notional minimum connection times at least sort of help you to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Try telling that to the people on board.

"Sorry for the delay leaving today, we are waiting for a potential person to potentially turn up late from another train that has been delayed on it's way to this station, but isn't actually an official connecting service. Those with quite tight totally valid connections need not worry because you'll be able to get the next connecting train should you miss it. Thank you for travelling with...."

You are welcome to try telling that to the people on board. However, you wouldn't be telling them anything that represents the point I was making.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only if you can guarantee that none of those 500 people are then subject to a subsequent delay. That three minutes could mean that 50 of the people then miss a bus or another train.

That is about subsequent effects, which I have commented on. In any case, you could leave on time and still be late further down the line.

 

[najaB]

That is about subsequent effects, which I have commented on. In any case, you could leave on time and still be late further down the line.

Is there a time delay on your posts as that is a reply to a post you already replied to? If you leave on time, you *may* be late down the line. Leave late and you almost certainly will be late down the line unless your schedule has a lot of padding.

 

[randyrippley]

Because the passengers shouldn't have been trying to board. If trains where held whenever there were passengers appearing to want to board the whole system would collapse.
There would, however, have been a loud alarm bleeping which means "Danger, do not attempt to board this train."

Therein lies the whole problem. Saying "the passengers shouldn't have been trying to board" is a nonsense. The passengers needed a train, a train was there, so they got on. The passengers don't care if the train was early/late/invalid connection or whatever. The train was going in the right direction, so they got on it. There was no-one saying "you're not allowed on here"
Citing the door alarm bleeping is invalid as this was clearly started AFTER the passengers were boarding and amounted to closing the doors on boarding passengers, in contravention of safety requirements. You can attempt to twist this however you like, but the simple fact is, people in the act of boarding a train had the doors unsafely closed on them

 

[jzw95]

Try telling that to the people on board.



"Sorry for the delay leaving today, we are waiting for a potential person to potentially turn up late from another train that has been delayed on it's way to this station, but isn't actually an official connecting service. Those with quite tight totally valid connections need not worry because you'll be able to get the next connecting train should you miss it. Thank you for travelling with...."

Or you can just say, "Sorry for the delay but we are holding this train for the people across the platform whose train was a few minutes late. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes for them to board and then we will be off."

I've been on trains where something similar was said and people are pretty understanding as most have been in a similar situation and would have been glad for the thoughtfulness. I think you'll find that most of us 'ordinary' people hope for some level of coordination on the railway, not discreet services operating as if they are the only one. [emoji1]

This is more of a general point; I obviously don't know the circumstances in the situation that started this post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, I don't think people know what an 'official' connecting service is as opposed to a 'non-official' one. I certainly don't and I travel frequently and far by train. I can understand that for operational reasons such a distinction must exist, but I can't see the officialness or not of a connection a factor in whether other passengers are sympathetic or not (or even known by anyone).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

I've been on trains where something similar was said and people are pretty understanding as most have been in a similar situation and would have been glad for the thoughtfulness.

And I'm sure in those circumstances the train that had been held was a booked connection from the late running train, was the last connection of the day, or had sufficient padding in its schedule to allow the late running to be made up.

I have personally benefited from it when coming off a late-running Far North line connection and the Inverness-Perth train has been held for a few minutes.

Nobody so far has said that holding a train is a bad thing, but there is a point where good customer service in holding a late train to avoid delaying a few passengers becomes bad customer service by delaying a larger number of passengers.

It just isn't always operationally feasible to hold a train and anyone who suggests that it is needs to take off their rose-tinted glasses.

 

[Flamingo]

I'll often ask for the West Wales train to be held for a few minutes at Swansea, as there are not really any rail connections off it further west, or much they can hold up by running a few minutes down (I know, I'm now going to get a list).

However, I wouldn't dream of asking for the trains going north from Newport or Bristol Parkway to be held, as they have a longer more complicated run where a few minutes would make a really big difference. (Also, I'd be wasting my breath to ask - the answer would be "No chance!").

As a general rule about slamming the door in a passengers face - I won't hold the train three seconds for somebody running down the platform if they are carrying a coffee cup or take-away bag!

 

[Harbornite]

Indeed. One definitely delayed passenger is a better situation to be in than than 500 people potentially delayed.

Indeed, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[Greenback]

I'll often ask for the West Wales train to be held for a few minutes at Swansea, as there are not really any rail connections off it further west, or much they can hold up by running a few minutes down (I know, I'm now going to get a list).

However, I wouldn't dream of asking for the trains going north from Newport or Bristol Parkway to be held, as they have a longer more complicated run where a few minutes would make a really big difference. (Also, I'd be wasting my breath to ask - the answer would be "No chance!").

As a general rule about slamming the door in a passengers face - I won't hold the train three seconds for somebody running down the platform if they are carrying a coffee cup or take-away bag!

This very true. the West Wales trains are held at Swansea ona regular basis, even though it does delay those on board who might not have other rail connections to make, but could potentially have a bus connection, meeting, interview or other time sensitive appointment to make. I fully accept that is less likely on this route compared to others.

Even so, Mrs G does get annoyed at being home 15 minutes later than she expected when she is working in Swansea. She prefers to take the train, but she doesn't much like sitting in Swansea station!

I think that's really the underlying point of nay thread of this nature. No matter what is done, the rail industry can't win. Depart on time and passengers from late running trains don't like it. Depart late, and those on board don't like it. All guards can really do is to try and minimise the inconvenience to as few passengers as possible.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

I think you are being economical with the truth.

What I think happened was this: as you went across the platform the hustle alarm was already sounding (it has to before the doors close). You disregarded this (and maybe warnings from guard/platform staff?) and carried on as the doors closed. Given that the dispatch procedure had already started and you ignored the warnings (hustle alarm), then you have put yourself in that situation. As for your 59 minute wait: that's your problem. You took a chance on a connection that wasn't booked and it missed.

Unless you were there sir, I think you are rather jumping to conclusions. I walked across the platform being far too old to run. I was then unable to board the 153 immediately as the small vestibule was too crowded with the conductor, the gentleman ahead of me who did make the connection, and I think others. The train looked unusually busy as the preceding Crewe - Stoke - Euston had been cancelled. The door was narrow so I rested my bag on the step while I waited and the door then closed on it.

 

[najaB]

I was then unable to board the 153 immediately as the small vestibule was too crowded with the conductor, the gentleman ahead of me who did make the connection, and I think others.... The door was narrow so I rested my bag on the step while I waited and the door then closed on it.

So it seems the thread title was misleading - it would be more accurately have been "Doors closed as passengers unable to board full train."

 

[43096]

Unless you were there sir, I think you are rather jumping to conclusions. I walked across the platform being far too old to run. I was then unable to board the 153 immediately as the small vestibule was too crowded with the conductor, the gentleman ahead of me who did make the connection, and I think others. The train looked unusually busy as the preceding Crewe - Stoke - Euston had been cancelled. The door was narrow so I rested my bag on the step while I waited and the door then closed on it.

You've changed your story...

So the train is full and you cannot physically board. What do you expect the guard to do: sit and wait hoping someone got off to let you on?

It doesn't really stack up from where I am - you post a story that is challenged and then change your story. I'd say you just came on to have a rant - why let the facts get in the way?

 

[najaB]

I do not know whether the train was full or not.

Based on this:

...the small vestibule was too crowded with the conductor, the gentleman ahead of me who did make the connection, and I think others.

And this:

The train looked unusually busy as the preceding Crewe - Stoke - Euston had been cancelled.

It's a fair assumption that overcrowding was at the root of the matter under discussion, rather than any poor customer service on the part of the guard.

 

[island]

This point is irrelevant as lateness isn't like that. You can't add together the lateness of several people and get some number that has any meaning in reality

Nonsense. Of course you can.

so the aim should be to minimise the delay to an individual.

Why? Especially if the said individual has not shown celerity in their journey so far.

I'm not less or more late if there are fewer or more people on my train, so it is better to delay a train of 500 people by three minutes if it saves a single person an hour.

Nonsense. Of course it isn't, for the reasons already given above. Customer service is given to both the people who were organised/fast/lucky enough to be on the train as well as to the few who were not.

 

[najaB]

Nonsense. Of course it isn't, for the reasons already given above. Customer service is given to both the people who were organised/fast/lucky enough to be on the train as well as to the few who were not.

I'd give up... it's been asked several times to explain how it's good customer service to delay a whole trainload of people, but there's been a deafening silence.

 

[bb21]

I'd give up... it's been asked several times to explain how it's good customer service to delay a whole trainload of people, but there's been a deafening silence.

"Good" customer service obviously depends on your perspective.

"Sod the 500 people" if I were to be an hour late.

"Sod the latecomers" if I were to miss my tight 10-minute connection onto the last bus.

(Not exactly "I" but many people probably feel that way.)

 

[Harbornite]

This point is irrelevant as lateness isn't like that. You can't add together the lateness of several people and get some number that has any meaning in reality so the aim should be to minimise the delay to an individual. I'm not less or more late if there are fewer or more people on my train, so it is better to delay a train of 500 people by three minutes if it saves a single person an hour.

Was this post supposed to be serious? So you're saying it's better to make 500 individuals late rather than one individual? Good grief...

 

[miami]

Was this post supposed to be serious? So you're saying it's better to make 500 individuals late rather than one individual? Good grief...

Depends on the lateness. 500 people being 30 seconds late, or 1 person being 5 days late?

 

[TheManBehind]

Nonsense. Of course you can.

This - in fact, most metropolitan railways do it as a measure of customer experience. It's called lost customer hours. LUL have it as one of their most basic performance measures as it's far more useful PPM or RT measures as service recovery time and recovery methods can be measured too!

 

[najaB]

Depends on the lateness. 500 people being 30 seconds late, or 1 person being 5 days late?

Nice straw man you've made there. :roll: And it depends on the impact on each of the 500.