This is what gets the current rail system a bad name

[Fokx]

Out of curiosity what was the stock of the TPE train used? If it was a MK5A, then the guard is not permitted to stop the dispatch procedure once this has started unless absolutely necessary.

If the door close button has been pressed before the passengers of the Northern service have even stepped onto the platform, the guard has no control over the doors anymore except their own local door.

The guard has full control of the 185 however.

If I worked in HR for TPE, I would be suggesting to that guard that a customer-facing job was perhaps not for them.

You really wouldn’t get far with that one.

From the company perspective (rightly or wrongly) the guard carried out the correct procedures as per the company training, guidelines and dispatch procedure.

 

[43096]

Out of curiosity what was the stock of the TPE train used? If it was a MK5A, then the guard is not permitted to stop the dispatch procedure once this has started unless absolutely necessary.

If the door close button has been pressed before the passengers of the Northern service have even stepped onto the platform, the guard has no control over the doors anymore except their own local door.

The guard has full control of the 185 however.

RTT shows the stock as a Class 68 and Mark 5s.

 

[DanNCL]

If the door close button has been pressed before the passengers of the Northern service have even stepped onto the platform, the guard has no control over the doors anymore except their own local door.

How on earth was that signed off as fit for purpose. Even DOO stock have the ability for the dispatch procedure to aborted at any time if required.

 

[43066]

How on earth was that signed off as fit for purpose. Even DOO stock have the ability for the dispatch procedure to aborted at any time if required.

If the method is driver-release-guard-close the guard might not have access to release buttons. A re-release would be achieved by buzzing the driver up.

There is some stock out there (eg 319s in DOO form) where, once the door close button was pressed, the doors would close even if re-released while the hustle alarm was sounding. A pretty silly bit of design which likely wouldn’t be allowed on a new build train today, of course.

 

[Fokx]

How on earth was that signed off as fit for purpose. Even DOO stock have the ability for the dispatch procedure to aborted at any time if required.

Because the driver controls the opening of the doors on the new DCO stock.

Dispatch can be aborted but it’s the driver who should re-open the doors at the request of the guard, but this won’t be done unless absolutely essential

 

[Bevan Price]

Can't speak for their employer but at mine if I am over my time by 30 or more seconds I have to justify that, and holding for transferring passengers won't be accepted. My personal feelings aside I do what I'm told by the person signing my wages off!

In my opinion, an employer like that is total sh*t, as is the system that leads to such policy. Doubtless some apologist will waffle about connections further down the line, but some schedules have enough slack to allow recovery of a couple of minutes lateness during a journey.

And as numerous TP trains from Scarborough currently go no further than York, and have long waits before returning, failure to hold connections at Malton seems totally inexcusable.

 

[alistairlees]

Out of curiosity what was the stock of the TPE train used? If it was a MK5A, then the guard is not permitted to stop the dispatch procedure once this has started unless absolutely necessary.

If the door close button has been pressed before the passengers of the Northern service have even stepped onto the platform, the guard has no control over the doors anymore except their own local door.

The guard has full control of the 185 however.



You really wouldn’t get far with that one.

From the company perspective (rightly or wrongly) the guard carried out the correct procedures as per the company training, guidelines and dispatch procedure.

The driver and the guard would have been able to see the approaching Northern service well before it arrived at Seamer; there is excellent visibility down the line. They would have needed to choose to close the doors / start the despatch procedure as they could see the other train approaching.

 

[43066]

In my opinion, an employer like that is total sh*t, as is the system that leads to such policy. Doubtless some apologist will waffle about connections further down the line, but some schedules have enough slack to allow recovery of a couple of minutes lateness during a journey.

Most schedules don’t have any flexibility, they are tightly timed to the minute and impact other services.

People need to decide whether they want a punctual-as-possible railway, or one where timetables are ignored to hold connections for people who are late for trains (often inconveniencing a much greater number of people who are already aboard).

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

 

[cambran]

I had an example today of what should be done. My RRB from Derby was heavily delayed by traffic congestion and we arrived at Burton at 17.50 just as the train was due to depart. We were greeted by staff shouting 'No need to run, we're holding the train'. Everyone made the connection, the train left two minutes late and was back on time at New Street. No one was delayed, so all credit to the staff at Burton.

 

[Starmill]

If the dispatch procedure has been interrupted, it can be aborted for safety reasons. There is no difference between this and, say, a Voyager train.

Because the driver controls the opening of the doors on the new DCO stock.

Dispatch can be aborted but it’s the driver who should re-open the doors at the request of the guard, but this won’t be done unless absolutely essential

Is Driver Controlled Operation really a sensible description of a train which cannot be worked without a conductor to close the doors? If that's what TPE are calling those locomotive hauled train sets it seems very dubious to me.

 

[Bevan Price]

Most schedules don’t have any flexibility, they are tightly timed to the minute and impact other services.

People need to decide whether they want a punctual-as-possible railway, or one where timetables are ignored to hold connections for people who are late for trains (often inconveniencing a much greater number of people who are already aboard).

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

With respect, when the train has a turnround time of over 40 minutes at York, that is a crazy system. Stranding people for almost an hour is no way to run a passenger-friendly railway; I suggest that any manager who disagrees is unfit to run a customer-serving business.

It is probably fortunate for some railway managers that I will never be in a position to run the railways; my first action would be to dump all compensation payments for late running, and then to specify a policy to hold connections for, say, up to 5 minutes.

 

[43066]

With respect, when the train has a turnround time of over 40 minutes at York, that is a crazy system. Stranding people for almost an hour is no way to run a passenger-friendly railway; I suggest that any manager who disagrees is unfit to run a customer-serving business.

But there’s more to it than just that individual train’s turnaround, pathing being a massive issue, especially for long distance services. A minute’s delay here will soon be ten minutes, with a knock on to perhaps dozens of other services across a wide area of the country.

A minute here or there, where does it end? On such an intensive used and crowded network as ours the only workable approach really is to prioritise on time departures. Let’s face it the railway gets far more stick for running late than it does for leaving late running passengers behind.

It is probably fortunate for some railway managers that I will never be in a position to run the railways; my first action would be to dump all compensation payments for late running, and then to specify a policy to hold connections for, say, up to 5 minutes.

And probably also fortunate for most passengers, as that would have a disastrous effect on overall punctuality! You’d delay far more people than you assisted.

 

[Fokx]

If the dispatch procedure has been interrupted, it can be aborted for safety reasons. There is no difference between this and, say, a Voyager train.

It can but one the doors are shut they will not be re-released. If the guard has to interrupt the dispatch procedure, for example if a passenger was pushing the door open button, the guard simply stops and restarts when it is safe to do so. If the passenger doors are locked shut they wouldn’t then be re-released, the passenger would be told to step back, the local door would close and the train continues.

Passengers intending to board from a delayed service to make a connection is not a safety reason to abandon dispatch (unless they’ve entered the PTI and are within a dangerous physical distance from the train itself)

I will point out that I’m not saying this is what happened on this occasion, but merely it’s much harder to re-release the doors on the loco fleet than it is on the DMU fleet if the door close button was already pressed before the northern passengers stepped foot on the platform. I couldn’t possibly comment if this was or wasn’t the case as I wasn’t physically there unlike the OP.

 

[Starmill]

unless they’ve entered the PTI and are within a dangerous physical distance from the train itself

Someone attempting to board a train is by definition in this area. Which I think is pretty darn obvious.

But I don't think it makes much of a difference. Just because the guard might be able to release the doors again that doesn't mean that they should or will.

The actual answer to the problem has nothing to do with any of this anyway, it's to change the policy affecting this particular location.

It's also noteworthy that some guards won't try to close the doors at all if they perceive risk that people are going to try to board too late, in any situation, not just this one. If you know people are approaching but that the train will be out of reach by the time they get there that's a different situation to the one where they're clearly going to get there and try to board potentially getting something trapped in the door. Some guards are much better in perceiving risk than others. It's also notable that a driver working without platform staff assistance is much much less likely to be able to take such measures, regardless of how much technology they have available to them.

 

[muz379]

Nothing will happen to any member of traincrew because their job is to get their train away on time .

Yeah sure it would have been better for the connecting passengers to wait but it's very hard to legislate around issues of "discretion" because people will always make different decisions .

specify a policy to hold connections for, say, up to 5 minutes

The debate just then gets shifted to 6 minutes with the same argument of "well it was only an extra minute "

 

[yorkie]

Hmm, you have to be careful with that though. The people wanting the connection are asking for that, the people already on the train want to leave on time. Some people are happy to wait a few minutes for a late train, others are not.

No; we want to arrive reasonably on time and I would far rather we stop this obsession with often leaving early, only to wait outside a station for a platform or wait at a junction for a path.

All too often, trains leave people behind only to come to a stand, or a crawl before the next station call; it's utterly pointless and is the opposite of how it is done in Switzerland.

Nearly every train I get these days departs early and yet then has to wait for a platform, often arriving late. Our priorities are all wrong.

Well I've got a trip to Bridlington at the end of the month, and having read this I'm not prepared to take the chance, especially on my return journey

Bear in mind you can claim Delay Repay if the connection is missed.

(does anyone know whether the reverse connection off TPE onto Northern is subject to the same idiosyncratic frustrations?).

The rail industry would probably rather you claimed compensation; if the train is missed you would have time to hop back on the train to Scarborough

So, having already got an Anytime Short Distance Return between Seamer and Bridlington, I've just purchased an Off Peak Day Return for Seamer to Scarborough. Means I have to leave my hotel an hour earlier than planned, but I'd rather kill a bit of time in Scarborough station and environs than be stuck at Seamer for an hour, should history repeat.

You could have just bought that on the train on the day, if you missed the connection.

Also holders of through fares are valid to double back to Scarborough for interchange purposes, though this would not apply if you split at Seamer.

 

[muz379]

No; we want to arrive on time and I would far rather we stop this obsession with often leaving early, only to wait outside a station for a platform or wait at a junction for a path.

All too often, trains leave people behind only to come to a stand, or a crawl before the next station call; it's utterly pointless and is the opposite of how it is done in Switzerland.

Whilst I appreciate the arriving on time being the most important thing to passengers leaving on time in many places is important to ensure that on time arrival . And of course depending on where any time for recovery is in the working timetable leaving late could mean plenty of people for intermediate stops arrive late even if the train still gets to its destination on time .

Leaving early isn't good though for obvious reason .

If we had a system that did allow some trains to wait for connections I could see it being severely limited anyway to trains that don't pass through tightly run bottlenecks . Staff would he expected to know what if any hold times could be applied to their services and apply accordingly . To provide an overall level of reliability I can't see how you could allow or plan for some services to be run with a discretionary delay .

 

[yorkie]

I believe those who are acting as apologists for the rail industry work for TOCs, while those who can see how wrong this is are generally well travelled and experienced of comparing the UK with other places where customer care is more important. Therefore, we will never reach unanimous agreement!

Whilst I appreciate the arriving on time being the most important thing to passengers leaving on time in many places is important to ensure that on time arrival . And of course depending on where any time for recovery is in the working timetable leaving late could mean plenty of people for intermediate stops arrive late even if the train still gets to its destination on time .

The reality is generally trains often get held for platforms/paths, despite having left a few seconds early. LNER almost always depart King's Cross early and I've known this happen only to come to a halt at Finsbury Park; if you are lucky you may sit time at a station en route but a clear run is generally only possible after a slightly late departure.

Leaving early isn't good though for obvious reason .

Avanti (Virgin before them) have been doing this at Euston for years with impunity; LNER is worse than their predecessors and pretty much in the same league as Avanti these days. I don't think anyone has the power or will to stop them.

If we had a system that did allow some trains to wait for connections I could see it being severely limited anyway to trains that don't pass through tightly run bottlenecks . Staff would he expected to know what if any hold times could be applied to their services and apply accordingly . To provide an overall level of reliability I can't see how you could allow or plan for some services to be run with a discretionary delay .

Have you been to Switzerland?

In any case I am not necessarily asking for trains to wait a long time; I want trains to not depart even slightly early and I also want trains to wait for connections if it is a matter of seconds or a minute without question. Longer than a minute does need careful consideration I'll grant you that, but isn't what this thread was originally about.

 

[muz379]

I believe those who are acting as apologists for the rail industry work for TOCs, while those who can see how wrong this is are generally well travelled and experienced of comparing the UK with other places where customer care is more important. Therefore, we will never reach unanimous agreement!

I don't think calling people apologists is necessary especially when all they are doing is politely explaining or offering alternative ideas into the mix , in many cases seeming to understand the woes of passengers as well . I'm sure there's also an overlap of people working for Tocs who also are well travelled in various countries.

In any case I am not necessarily asking for trains to wait a long time; I want trains to not depart even slightly early and I also want trains to wait for connections if it is a matter of seconds or a minute without question. Longer than a minute does need careful consideration I'll grant you that, but isn't what this thread was originally about

I completely agree nothing should be running early .

The danger with what this thread was originally about is that we make it customary to hold a connection for "upto a minute" but it's never just 30 seconds you'll have stragglers or someone with reduced mobility/large amounts of luggage . Even re releasing the doors and starting the dispatch again takes longer than 30 seconds . In any case it sounds like with the stock worked here a quick release and re close isn't possible at all . Sure you'll decry this as just rail staff being "apologist's" but I'm sure many will have experienced the same.

The passengers missed the train by seconds sure but the guard would have started their dispatch procedure a minute before that happened when their arriving train hadn't even stopped yet .

 

[Western Sunset]

Going back to the OP. The "connection" at Seamer was a valid one, as that itinerary can be found on the National Rail journey planner. Looking at RTT, the Northern train from Bridlington arrived 4 min late at 1239, exactly at the same time as the Trans-Pennine service to York. The TP left on time at 1240 and arrived at York 0.25 min early - there being 3 min allowance for engineering/performance between Malton and York.

"Performance" seems to be the in-word nowadays, not passenger convenience. Of course, you can't stop at every shack along the way for passengers ambling to the station, but at junctions such as Seamer (and also Castle Cary mentioned above), there should be some regard for passengers making advertised (ie on the National Rail site) connections. If guards are doing their job proactively, they should be aware of trains arriving at adjacent platforms - is that too much to ask? It was disappointing to read the comments made above that "holding for transferring passengers won't be accepted" as a reason for being more than 30 secs late.

 

[D1537]

The passengers missed the train by seconds sure but the guard would have started their dispatch procedure a minute before that happened when their arriving train hadn't even stopped yet .

A train that the guard would have been able to see approaching, and would also have been aware that it was a connection.

Most of us are aware that since 1995 the railways have been run for the benefit of the TOCs rather than the passenger, but it is a little disappointing that this ethos has been passed on to the staff.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think calling people apologists is necessary especially when all they are doing is politely explaining or offering alternative ideas into the mix , in many cases seeming to understand the woes of passengers as well .

It is accurate, though.

I'm sure there's also an overlap of people working for Tocs who also are well travelled in various countries.

Absolutely but if they have seen how it should be done and care about their passengers, they will be in agreement with the majority on here that the connection should have been held.

I completely agree nothing should be running early .

The danger with what this thread was originally about is that we make it customary to hold a connection for "upto a minute" but it's never just 30 seconds you'll have stragglers or someone with reduced mobility/large amounts of luggage . Even re releasing the doors and starting the dispatch again takes longer than 30 seconds . In any case it sounds like with the stock worked here a quick release and re close isn't possible at all . Sure you'll decry this as just rail staff being "apologist's" but I'm sure many will have experienced the same.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not this train should be held; as I said above, we will never get unanimous agreement on this issue.

"Performance" seems to be the in-word nowadays, not passenger convenience. Of course, you can't stop at every shack along the way for passengers ambling to the station, but at junctions such as Seamer (and also Castle Cary mentioned above), there should be some regard for passengers making advertised (ie on the National Rail site) connections. If guards are doing their job proactively, they should be aware of trains arriving at adjacent platforms - is that too much to ask? It was disappointing to read the comments made above that "holding for transferring passengers won't be accepted" as a reason for being more than 30 secs late.

It shouldn't be, but I can't see the rail industry amending its ways any time soon. Who is going to make them?

Most of us are aware that since 1995 the railways have been run for the benefit of the TOCs rather than the passenger, but it is a little disappointing that this ethos has been passed on to the staff.

Just some, not all, but yes it is disappointing.

 

[Devon Sunset]

I remember being told way back in 2005 by a CTM ”don’t make eye contact with anyone running, just make sure you leave on time.” And yes that was a Firstgroup toc.

 

[bramling]

Employers have got to pay a little bit more and be much more selective in the recruitment process.

In my view this is a very good point. However this also needs to apply to management / supervisory positions, and those above them too. Toxic culture breeds and multiplies if the culture is hostile, and there’s too much of that in the industry in places.

 

[AndyMike]

Although the OP’s example is different, lots are living in fantasy land if you expect traincrew to know every connection for every service. Station staff usually have better things to do if they’re not involved in the dispatch than hanging around platforms trying to maintain connections.

This doesn’t seem to be such an issue in much of mainland Europe. In the likes of Germany and Sweden, in my experience, train staff are far better-informed regarding connections than is the case here, making them more useful to the passenger seeking information on an onward journey.

 

[bramling]

Most schedules don’t have any flexibility, they are tightly timed to the minute and impact other services.

People need to decide whether they want a punctual-as-possible railway, or one where timetables are ignored to hold connections for people who are late for trains (often inconveniencing a much greater number of people who are already aboard).

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Whilst I agree with this, and certainly do not advocate waiting for people who have turned up late for their train, there does need to be some application of thought given to connections IMO.

In this case, looking at the schedules, the TPE had one minute of engineering allowance and two minutes of performance allowance approaching York, and no other obvious conflicts on the journey from Seamer to York. In this case I’d find it hard to justify not holding the train for the extra few seconds. In the current climate the railway is going to have to place some emphasis on quality.

 

[AndyMike]

I believe those who are acting as apologists for the rail industry work for TOCs, while those who can see how wrong this is are generally well travelled and experienced of comparing the UK with other places where customer care is more important. Therefore, we will never reach unanimous agreement!

What, then, is the fundamental difference that makes possible the better service *generally* (not always) experienced overseas in this regard? Is it a question of attitude - perhaps influenced by the different structure of the railway in the UK - or something more practical?

 

[Requeststop]

I am now wondering if the attitude/action I saw is related to the ongoing dispute between conductors and TPE.

Even if that were so there would be no need to take the dispute out on the customers.

I'm sure more often than not, conductors, in my experience, try very hard to help passengers on delayed services to help them get connections. Many times I have heard a conductor announce to people changing at Par, for Newquay, that the Newquay service has been held for them having called ahead to try to get the connection. A wait of two hours at Par is not one I'd like to experience.

 

[physics34]

In my view this is a very good point. However this also needs to apply to management / supervisory positions, and those above them too. Toxic culture breeds and multiplies if the culture is hostile, and there’s too much of that in the industry in places.

Indeed, i work under managers that have no love at all for the railways

 

[muz379]

A train that the guard would have been able to see approaching, and would also have been aware that it was a connection.

There are a lot of assumptions in that statement . Firstly that the guard who can see the train approaching knows it's going to be stopped in the platform within seconds of their departure . Also that the guard even knows that it is a connection , this sort of information isn't regularly delivered as part of route learning it's something learned through experience .

It is accurate, though

I don't agree , I think this is one of the things that sometimes puts colleagues off explaining things .

We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not this train should be held; as I said above, we will never get unanimous agreement on this issue.

I haven't actually said that I disagree that the connection should have been held . I think it's patently obvious that the ideal outcome for connecting passengers is that the train should have been held . Indeed as it happens I wish traincrew did have more flexibility over minor delays for departure to react to stuff like this . But I do challenge the idea that "it's only 30 seconds" or that it won't have any impact on the train arriving on time because I've seen many times how these things don't just take 30 seconds and then you are leaving a few minutes late which can effect a path later in the journey . I don't have any issue with services being held in situations such as that described in this thread and understand the impact not holding has on passengers I just think we should be honest about the risks this has to causing a delayed arrival albeit a very minor one .

In this case, looking at the schedules, the TPE had one minute of engineering allowance and two minutes of performance allowance approaching York, and no other obvious conflicts on the journey from Seamer to York. In this case I’d find it hard to justify not holding the train for the extra few seconds. In the current climate the railway is going to have to place some emphasis on quality.

The problem is that while some staff are more astute and aware of this , nor is it part of the competence to be aware or know how to find this information .