Train dispatched as I was pressing the button to open the doors

[yorkie]

And the two are linked of course.

There is no reason why the GB method can be argued to be better than the Swiss method; we're not better at timekeeping than they are!

I won't get into all the detail regarding performance and the importance of dwells and the knock on performance impact, especially at busy multi-platform stations and terminals with a throat of trains in and out but it is true. Especially if you are arriving at a terminal and there is a tight timetable for reoccupation of the platform following a slightly late departure.

This can be the same in Switzerland and doesn't justify the current situation of varying times at which the doors are locked. There is no reason why a consistent approach to door locking times being at an advertised time would result in delays; is there any evidence that railways that operate this way have more delays?

In your opinion (on this matter).

Yes, it may well be that the majority of people have the alternative opinion that the GB method is better than the Swiss method. However, I have my doubts that this is the case!

We have differing methods in terms of departure time - both are valid and it's not like this is some sort of new phenomenon that is suddenly outraging people.

It's getting worse, though, especially with stations such as Euston and King's Cross seemingly wanting trains to depart earlier and earlier in recent years.

Where there are tens of thousands of dispatches every single day, whilst they should be kept to a minimum where humans are involved there are bound to be some that depart slightly early - just as there are those that depart slightly late due to human error. As I said way up thread, there will always be 'one more' person trying to board at busy locations and disaptchers (platform / guard / driver) have to be strict.

None of this is a valid reason to justify the GB method of varying door locking times as opposed to the consistent approach adopted in Japan, Switzerland etc.

Have I been subject to an early departure? Yes I have (particularly grating as it was my train into work for my morning shift!) and I raised a complaint and fair play to the TOC (GTR) they apologised, gave me some goodwill money and would speak to the driver (DOO dispatch). But that happened 1% of the time and I chalked it up to being one of those things. As I said, humans are not infallible.

Yes humans can make mistakes, but if we could get a consistent and sensible policy, that would be a good start!

There are some places where early departures routinely happen (e.g. London Bridge towards Charing Cross) so there are some exceptions which nobody seems that concerned about.

That's beyond the scope of this thread and indeed is being discussed elsewhere. It's not a problem in those cases.

And I have experienced the railways in Switzerland which are lovely, but there's a lot of history and culture (and financing!) to unpick and probably an essay to write on why there are so many differences.

Yes there are a lot of things they do better than us, but I see no justification for our inconsistent approach of early despatches of varying times (or even a consistent approach - if we were to adopt one - of early despatches).

With respect, what gives you the credibility to know "what customers really want"?

In that case, let's accept that none of us know what customers want, and call it even?

If people think that customers are desperate for the train wheels to be moving by the advertised departure time, then as far as I am concerned, they are entitled to believe that. I see no evidence for this, but we'll agree to disagree.

Maybe people in Switzerland are jealous of the early departures from King's Cross and the opportunity to just miss their connection despite turning up before the advertised time, only for the train to brake at Finsbury Park or Welwyn etc, and are desperate for the same to be done in Switzerland? I doubt it, but if anyone wants to believe that, then so be it; people are entitled to believe whatever they want!

Some people - mainly rail enthusiasts on this forum - is, as per usual, not representative of all passengers.

If some railway staff really want to believe that passengers are desperate for their trains to be locked up early and for the train to already be on its way by the advertised time, and that people in Switzerland would prefer it if their trains operated the same way, then by all means believe that!

As I said before, no side is going to back down and change their minds.

As several have mentioned, I actually don't think the vast majority of passengers care about this point - as some people have mentioned in this post -, because the vast majority of passengers are at the platform and on-board long before this becomes an issue.

By that logic, why not depart even earlier? Once the majority are on, why not just depart? (that's a rhetorical question by the way, in case anyone is wondering!)

Again, I'm not claiming my view is representative either, but without a proper quantified survey, nobody can be exactly sure "what customers want".

No, but I think many of us can have an educated guess!

Also, rushing close to departure time absolutely ramps up the risk of slips, trips and falls and injury and this is well documented.

Is there any evidence that our approach of varying despatch times before the advertised time reduces people running, slippping, falling?

I've seen plenty of people running for trains with 2-3 mins before departure in this country. Is there a possibility that our approach of varying despatch times before the booked time may actually be resulting in some people rushing unnecessarily?

Is there any evidence of an increased number of slips, trips and falls in countries where the final boarding time is advertised?

Does having a final boarding time of 30, 40, 60, 120 seconds (depending on location) result in a reduction in people rushing? Do stations where there are greater deadlines, such as Euston, have a reduction in people rushing? (again, this is very much a rhetorical question!)

Clearly you and I disagree on this matter so I will leave it here with the following:

• Trains should start moving at xx:xx:00.
• Early departures should obviously be avoided.
• A blanket rule (e.g. 30 seconds before departure) should be implemented for doors closing.
• The vast majority of passengers are not impacted.

Clearly you and I disagree on this matter so I will leave it here with the following:

• Trains should be available to board up to xx:xx:00.
• Early departures should obviously be avoided.
• A blanket rule of advertising the final boarding time should be implemented for doors closing.
• The vast majority of passengers are not impacted by adopting a sensible, uniform approach of advertising the final boarding time.

 

[Richardr]

Outside this forum, I’m not sure anyone gives a flying carp about the time a train sets off. People are, fairly obviously, bothered about whether their train arrives on time.

A pedant [me] writes - within reason i.e. seconds. I know it isn't what you mean, but many passengers would have an issue if the train departs say 10 minutes early.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

I would say consistency at all stations is the key thing, and once we have that, why not use the ability we have for public and working times to be different? It doesn't help that we keep building trains where the doors move at the speed of a glacier. Is it reasonable for "departure" to take more than 30 seconds to begin? If we insist on an x seconds rule then it should be properly advertised and minimum connection times reviewed to make sure they are still reachable

 

[bahnause]

I have difficulties with the argument that an earlier door closing time or departure ultimately benefits the customer, especially if it is not communicated properly.

The fact is that many people don't live at the station. The assumption that they will turn up at a station out of thin air at any time they wish and disappear into nothingness at their destination is not correct. There is a good chance that a journey will involve a transfer from or to another form of public transport at one or more points. It's nice if this is a regular connection, where it doesn't make much difference whether I reach a connection earlier or later. However, this is often not the case. In other words, this ‘allow enough time’ quickly adds 30 minutes to the daily commute or makes it unpredictable. One of the common arguments against using public transport is the journey time. You don't win customers with an artificial extension. Transport chain is the magic word, it is just as important in passenger transport as it is in logistics.

If my connection of seven minutes is now down to five minutes due to doors or whatever reason, I'm not walking slower, I'm walking faster.

 

[Huntergreed]

It’s interesting to see just how passionate some people are in defending what I see as a practice with little to no basis in logic.

I cannot think of a single logical reason why a right time departure should be regarded as the most important metric. Many seem to be of the view that this must be ensured at all costs, regardless of the impact to the passenger.

I would expect that the vast majority of passengers are not obsessively checking the time when they are onboard a train, ready to complain if the train has departed seconds after the stated departure time. As has been suggested previously, I agree with the suggestion that most passengers do not care if the train departs late provided the train arrives on time.

In fact, I find it far more frustrating as a passenger to depart on time and then come to a halt soon after as the junction ahead is not clear. If I had been running to catch a train and missed it, only to find out that the train had stopped just around the corner because it wasn’t cleared to continue, I would be pretty miffed.

I notice this often at Gretna Green, where we depart and then often stop just around the corner (often for a few minutes) waiting for Gretna junction to clear. If I had been running to make a train that got held, I would be annoyed at this!

This is part of a deeper issue with the philosophy of the railway (many aspects of which are misguided and based in very poor logic, in my opinion).

Now, can I conclusively say that the majority of passengers are unhappy with the current method? Of course not - that said, when we are prioritising the protection of an abstract metric over customer convenience and access to services, I think questions do have to be asked.

 

[arb]

For me, the issue isn't knowing how many seconds it is that the doors will be shut before some other specified time (after all, if I'm rushing, I'm not also trying to read a timetable in one hand whilst looking at the second hand of my watch on the other arm and trying to do mental arithmetic to help me come to a rational judgement of whether I have time to make the train or not!)

As a passenger, what I really want is a clear and obvious warning that the doors are about to be shut, therefore I should get on the train *right* *now* or forever hold my silence. Like, e.g., a consistently applied and used whistle from the platform staff or guard a few seconds before the "official" dispatch process begins. If I hear that whistle when I'm still crossing the footbridge to get to the train, I know I've most likely missed it and I'm far less likely to moan if the doors then shut when I get closer. If I hear that whistle whilst I'm walking along the train so that I can, as requested, use all available doors, I know that getting on *now* into a more crowded carriage takes priority.

In the absence of any indication from the platform, the first that a late-running passenger knows that dispatch is starting is when the doors get shut in their face. And I think that's the situation that upsets them the most: "If you'd warned me 5 seconds earlier then I'd have got on".

Certainly in my local area (Ely and Cambridge) I've noticed the whistle being used far less nowadays than it was in years gone by - despite both stations still apparently having plenty of platform staff.

 

[yorkie]

A pedant [me] writes - within reason i.e. seconds. I know it isn't what you mean, but many passengers would have an issue if the train departs say 10 minutes early.

I think you may have misunderstood the point @Doctor Fegg was making; they were rebutting what appeared to be a claim to suggest that passengers are desperate for their train to be moving by the advertised departure time.

I would say consistency at all stations is the key thing...

Sadly I fear there are too many influential people within within the rail industry to allow us to have a consistent approach, and even if a consistent approach was adopted, the industry cannot be trusted to go with the sensible approach of advertising the final boarding time.

... and once we have that, why not use the ability we have for public and working times to be different? It doesn't help that we keep building trains where the doors move at the speed of a glacier. Is it reasonable for "departure" to take more than 30 seconds to begin? If we insist on an x seconds rule then it should be properly advertised and minimum connection times reviewed to make sure they are still reachable

The thing is, this already happens at certain locations, such as Stevenage, and works well, so I don't see any reason why it can't be done elsewhere too.

 

[Class15]

I agree with @yorkie and @bahnause here - leaving early is shockingly poor sometimes (particularly when over 20 seconds). Trains should be available to board until the advertised times in my opinion. Thankfully I have never been affected by this on infrequent services, but it’s still a nuisance on the overground when the train leaves 1 minute early even if it’s only a 10 minute wait.

 

[GLC]

Once the station work complete signal has been given to the guard (e.g. first white light raised above the head), the guard will close the doors. Once the doors have been confirmed to be closed, and it is safe for departure, a second white light will be shown to the guard - this is known as the safety check complete signal. The guard will acknowledge this by giving a green light back before boarding the train and closing their door. Once the guards door is closed, the dispatcher will illuminate a “RA” indicator shown to the driver - “right away”. The driver starts the train moving.

Could the driver not simply close the doors instead? It may save enough time that this passenger could have boarded their train successfully

 

[Horizon22]

Could the driver not simply close the doors instead? It may save enough time that this passenger could have boarded their train successfully

Dispatch methods are agreed between each TOC and union and are dependent on a whole variety of factors and locations. So it is not as simple as that I'm afraid.

 

[duffield]

Not getting into the whole back and forth about right-time departure versus right-time door closure, but I really think under the present system it would make sense for all those stations or services which currently have thirty and forty second rules to at least standardise on the very simple "be on board one minute before departure time".

Easy to promote, easy to remember, and most people really aren't looking at seconds - for example, the default mobile display at the top of the screen (which I guess may be the majority time telling method now) is hours and minutes.

The actual dispatch timing and process would remain unchanged; this would be purely for public consumption.

Note I'm *not* addressing the issue of stations like Euston and Kings Cross here!

 

[800001]

Not getting into the whole back and forth about right-time departure versus right-time door closure, but I really think under the present system it would make sense for all those stations or services which currently have thirty and forty second rules to at least standardise on the very simple "be on board one minute before departure time".

Easy to promote, easy to remember, and most people really aren't looking at seconds - for example, the default mobile display at the top of the screen (which I guess may be the majority time telling method now) is hours and minutes.

The actual dispatch timing and process would remain unchanged; this would be purely for public consumption.

Note I'm *not* addressing the issue of stations like Euston and Kings Cross here!

Or quite simply the time on the timetable/departure boards is the time that despatch process starts?

If the industry needs to address internally how that translates to them operating the timetable that is there issue.

But the time on the timetable is the time the customer should be able to board the train.

 

[robert thomas]

There is no reason why the GB method can be argued to be better than the Swiss method; we're not better at timekeeping than they are!

This can be the same in Switzerland and doesn't justify the current situation of varying times at which the doors are locked. There is no reason why a consistent approach to door locking times being at an advertised time would result in delays; is there any evidence that railways that operate this way have more delays?

Yes, it may well be that the majority of people have the alternative opinion that the GB method is better than the Swiss method. However, I have my doubts that this is the case!

It's getting worse, though, especially with stations such as Euston and King's Cross seemingly wanting trains to depart earlier and earlier in recent years.

None of this is a valid reason to justify the GB method of varying door locking times as opposed to the consistent approach adopted in Japan, Switzerland etc.

Yes humans can make mistakes, but if we could get a consistent and sensible policy, that would be a good start!

That's beyond the scope of this thread and indeed is being discussed elsewhere. It's not a problem in those cases.

Yes there are a lot of things they do better than us, but I see no justification for our inconsistent approach of early despatches of varying times (or even a consistent approach - if we were to adopt one - of early despatches).

In that case, let's accept that none of us know what customers want, and call it even?

If people think that customers are desperate for the train wheels to be moving by the advertised departure time, then as far as I am concerned, they are entitled to believe that. I see no evidence for this, but we'll agree to disagree.

Maybe people in Switzerland are jealous of the early departures from King's Cross and the opportunity to just miss their connection despite turning up before the advertised time, only for the train to brake at Finsbury Park or Welwyn etc, and are desperate for the same to be done in Switzerland? I doubt it, but if anyone wants to believe that, then so be it; people are entitled to believe whatever they want!

If some railway staff really want to believe that passengers are desperate for their trains to be locked up early and for the train to already be on its way by the advertised time, and that people in Switzerland would prefer it if their trains operated the same way, then by all means believe that!

As I said before, no side is going to back down and change their minds.

By that logic, why not depart even earlier? Once the majority are on, why not just depart? (that's a rhetorical question by the way, in case anyone is wondering!)

No, but I think many of us can have an educated guess!

Is there any evidence that our approach of varying despatch times before the advertised time reduces people running, slippping, falling?

I've seen plenty of people running for trains with 2-3 mins before departure in this country. Is there a possibility that our approach of varying despatch times before the booked time may actually be resulting in some people rushing unnecessarily?

Is there any evidence of an increased number of slips, trips and falls in countries where the final boarding time is advertised?

Does having a final boarding time of 30, 40, 60, 120 seconds (depending on location) result in a reduction in people rushing? Do stations where there are greater deadlines, such as Euston, have a reduction in people rushing? (again, this is very much a rhetorical question!)



Clearly you and I disagree on this matter so I will leave it here with the following:

• Trains should be available to board up to xx:xx:00.
• Early departures should obviously be avoided.
• A blanket rule of advertising the final boarding time should be implemented for doors closing.
• The vast majority of passengers are not impacted by adopting a sensible, uniform approach of advertising the final boarding time.

My experience of Switzerland is that the train starts moving at the booked time and that the doors are locked 5-15 seconds earlier. I have never had a Swiss train delayed for me to board.

 

[bahnause]

My experience of Switzerland is that the train starts moving at the booked time and that the doors are locked 5-15 seconds earlier.

No, this is certainly not the case. The dispatch process only begins when the published departure time is reached.

 

[Class15]

My experience of Switzerland is that the train starts moving at the booked time and that the doors are locked 5-15 seconds earlier. I have never had a Swiss train delayed for me to board.

Not in my experience.

 

[800001]

My experience of Switzerland is that the train starts moving at the booked time and that the doors are locked 5-15 seconds earlier. I have never had a Swiss train delayed for me to board.

Only time I’ve seen trains held, are at Visp for people for the trains towards Zermatt.

 

[An_Engineer]

I can see the logic for closing doors early for long distance inter-city lines at terminus stations, even if I disagree with it (last week I heavily sympathised with a man at KingsX who spent two minutes arguing with platform staff that he should be let onto his train to York, all the while the train was just sat there waiting).

But for commuter or regional trains it becomes ludicrous. At many stations locking the doors 30secs before departure would mean barely or never unlocking doors. If you look at the Cambridge trains that stop at Finsbury park, on some there is a only a scheduled gap of one minute between arrival and departure (and arrival does not necessarily mean train stopped and doors open). And if you make an exception for those, then you've just introduced more inconsistency.

And for terminus commuters: I catch the KingsX to Cambridge service several times a week and there are often times where the platform at KingsX is only announced <5 mins before departure, so is there a magic three minute gap where it is allowable to be on the platform?

Or are we proposing a different rule for terminus stations? And then there are many terminus stations that also act as through stations (eg. Cambridge, Birmingham New Street etc). Or even worse, different rules for commuter trains? (and then trying to define what is or isn't a commuter train?)

 

[ole17]

I usually prefer to be a bystander to arguments such as this, but i will add my two cents to this routine slight niggle of GB rail operations, that generally train timeliness seems strangled by the many other facets of operations that could also improve it (probably mentioned previously so excuse me if this is a repetition). Such as:

- give drivers the "freedom" to make up for time by maximising acceleration out of and deceleration into stations, without rushing to penalise them for safety in case of an accident? Can drivers drive in a more 'flexible' way that doesn't mean they have to approach single yellows at certain speeds and crawl to every red signal miles ahead of them?
- give signallers the flexibility to set routes that maximises "overall" movement of trains through junctions instead of focusing on 'all green signals ahead for full speed', even if this means drivers will see more yellow and double yellow signals before it (but this will need to be countered by the first point)
- guards having to check/sell tickets and then open 'specific' doors of the train unit (in another carriage) to do their initial platform check. Why not open the nearest door and walk a little further down the platform

Train dispatch involves many rules, but if you call a passenger a 'customer', then you need to provide 'customer service' that involves a little smile and leeway, but also consistency. I'd expect gwr to dispatch similarly to northern and to lner, and that involves a whistle and words like "get on now" if the train was leaving

 

[Falcon1200]

When exactly is "in time", and how much of an earlier connection should people take to ensure this?

Where connections are involved the time allowed should be the specified connectional allowance.

 

[yorkie]

Where connections are involved the time allowed should be the specified connectional allowance.

So when a passenger allows that time and misses their train because the doors locked before the advertised time, we are in agreement it's not the passenger's fault, and they did allow sufficient time.

In some cases it is a bit of a stretch to expect the passenger to get from the doors of one train to the doors of another, potentially via footbridges and underpasses, and still allow sufficient time for the earlier than advertised despatch sequence to start, and that's before you consider that the inbound train may be a little late, or the doors may be delayed in opening, etc...

The current interchange times seem to be more in keeping with the times of boarding than the time a train is expected to already be moving!

My experience of Switzerland is that the train starts moving at the booked time and that the doors are locked 5-15 seconds earlier. I have never had a Swiss train delayed for me to board.

You have a very different experience to me then, and my experience is confirmed by Swiss rail employees, including one posting on this thread. (I'll also tag in @Oscar who lives in Switzerland who may be able to post his views also)

 

[Pete_uk]

And there I was, about six years old, being chucked onto a HST at Bristol TM after it had started moving...

 

[Krokodil]

In GB, the 'railway' seems to want the train to be part way out of the station by the advertised departure time

For what it's worth, it's not unique to the railway. If I see the advertised closing time of a shop, I expect that to be the time that the doors are locked behind the final departing customer. However many retailers only pay their staff until closing time, so there ends up being a rush to get everyone out so that the tills can be cashed up and staff leaving via the back door on the dot of the advertised closing time.

And when's the cut-off going to be for passengers who are cutting it fine?

Doors locked at hh:mm:00. It's nice, clear and consistent, with no ambiguity. As a guard I find "right time wheels rolling" to be a pain. When should I start the process? Are the doors already closed (with a modern unit that means that locking them is instant, with an older one there's still a hustle alarm before the hazard lights extinguish)? Has the unit got an engine isolated? How quickly will this driver take power? Guessing this wrong will result in wheels rolling early.

It would be much better for a national policy to be brought in that "public departure time" now means "door locking time". The WTT can be amended to have a departure time 30 seconds later where this is critical enough to make a difference. In many cases the WTT already shows a 30 second offset anyway.

We'd even make an automated announcement ("train doors may be locked shut up to 30/40 seconds before departure") redundant in the process. Win-win.

Only time I’ve seen trains held, are at Visp for people for the trains towards Zermatt.

I've seen the Scuol-Tarasp to Landquart train held at Sagliains for a late-running train from Pontresina. Interestingly the cause of the delay was the train having a Swiss Post container wagon shunted on at an intermediate station. I was a little worried because the line is a self-check one so there was no conductor to ask about the connection.

 

[Falcon1200]

So when a passenger allows that time and misses their train because the doors locked before the advertised time, we are in agreement it's not the passenger's fault, and they did allow sufficient time.

How often does that actually happen - Any examples? In fact, a more frequent complaint is that connectional allowances are too long and do not therefore show connections which could in reality be made!

 

[Lewisham2221]

I can see both sides of the argument here, but I've always been taught to allow contingency with timings - so if I miss something for the sake of a few seconds I accept that it's either my fault for cutting things too fine, or it's a case of bad luck that despite allowing a time buffer things have gone wrong enough to totally wipe out that buffer.

But, let's say we did move to "locking up" at hh:mm:00; currently a train advertised as 11:03 starts locking up at 11:02:30, instead we want it lock up at 11:03:00 - how long until someone complains that they missed the 11:03 train, despite being on the platform at 11:03 because the dispatch procedure started at 11:03:00, the wheels started rolling at 11:03:30, passenger arrived at 11:03:40 to see taillights disappearing into the distance despite the train being advertised as 11:03 and it still being 11:03 (up to and including 11:03:59)?

On the other hand, if everything did wait until hh:mm:00 before starting dispatch, what difference would that actually make? Surely if everything was following the same rules, everything would still be in the right place at junctions etc, just everything would be 30 seconds later than now?

 

[yorkie]

I can see both sides of the argument here, but I've always been taught to allow contingency with timings - so if I miss something for the sake of a few seconds I accept that it's either my fault for cutting things too fine, or it's a case of bad luck that despite allowing a time buffer things have gone wrong enough to totally wipe out that buffer.

Yes, I am well aware that some railway staff are keen to say they would be to blame in this situation, but I don't think that this is helpful, not indicative that we do things better in this country by locking up a varying length of time before the advertised time.

But, let's say we did move to "locking up" at hh:mm:00; currently a train advertised as 11:03 starts locking up at 11:02:30, instead we want it lock up at 11:03:00 - how long until someone complains that they missed the 11:03 train, despite being on the platform at 11:03 because the dispatch procedure started at 11:03:00, the wheels started rolling at 11:03:30, passenger arrived at 11:03:40 to see taillights disappearing into the distance despite the train being advertised as 11:03 and it still being 11:03 (up to and including 11:03:59)?

Is there any evidence for this?

It comes across as whataboutery to me.

On the other hand, if everything did wait until hh:mm:00 before starting dispatch, what difference would that actually make?

If it makes no difference, why are you against it?

Surely if everything was following the same rules, everything would still be in the right place at junctions etc, just everything would be 30 seconds later than now?

Surely you'd take it into account when planning the timetable? This already happens in some cases, e.g. I gave the example earlier of Stevenage (GTR).

For what it's worth, it's not unique to the railway. If I see the advertised closing time of a shop, I expect that to be the time that the doors are locked behind the final departing customer. However many retailers only pay their staff until closing time, so there ends up being a rush to get everyone out so that the tills can be cashed up and staff leaving via the back door on the dot of the advertised closing time.

This is what's known as a false equivalence fallacy, however I agree with the rest of your post...

Doors locked at hh:mm:00. It's nice, clear and consistent, with no ambiguity. As a guard I find "right time wheels rolling" to be a pain. When should I start the process? Are the doors already closed (with a modern unit that means that locking them is instant, with an older one there's still a hustle alarm before the hazard lights extinguish)? Has the unit got an engine isolated? How quickly will this driver take power? Guessing this wrong will result in wheels rolling early.

It would be much better for a national policy to be brought in that "public departure time" now means "door locking time". The WTT can be amended to have a departure time 30 seconds later where this is critical enough to make a difference. In many cases the WTT already shows a 30 second offset anyway.

We'd even make an automated announcement ("train doors may be locked shut up to 30/40 seconds before departure") redundant in the process. Win-win.

Exactly this!

I've seen the Scuol-Tarasp to Landquart train held at Sagliains for a late-running train from Pontresina. Interestingly the cause of the delay was the train having a Swiss Post container wagon shunted on at an intermediate station. I was a little worried because the line is a self-check one so there was no conductor to ask about the connection.

Were there complaints from people already on the train, which some people claim there would be?

How often does that actually happen - Any examples?

Here's one from today, after about 5 seconds of searching:

https://x.com/Ps7263387748322/status/1906765591614005634

@GWRHelp why don’t you even allow passengers at Bath one minute (when connecting from their inevitably delayed departure train) to Paddington? The Paddington departed at 18:43:00 - could’ve at least given 30 seconds or a minute. There are only two bloody platforms

I note the train arrived early into Chippenham, but was then stuck there for 8 mins (departing 5 late; the train had a booked 2 min dwell on top of the 1 min early arrival time).

I don't understand why you are asking me for examples; do you really not believe that this happens?!

In fact, a more frequent complaint is that connectional allowances are too long and do not therefore show connections which could in reality be made!

I highly doubt that's a more frequent complaint, but I'll turn it round: do you have any statistics on that?

 

[CW2]

I have a lot of sympathy for (and envy of) Swiss operating practices. The UK's emphasis on shorter journey times and cost reduction means transplanting Swiss practices here would provoke timetabling turmoil, and require a total rewrite of the planning rules. Small changes to train dispatch rules would soon snowball.
Maybe that's not a bad idea, if the customer benefits overall

 

[yorkie]

I have a lot of sympathy for (and envy of) Swiss operating practices. The UK's emphasis on shorter journey times and cost reduction means transplanting Swiss practices here would provoke timetabling turmoil, and require a total rewrite of the planning rules. Small changes to train dispatch rules would soon snowball.
Maybe that's not a bad idea, if the customer benefits overall

No-one is suggesting this.

However, right now, at some station the WTT departure time is 30 seconds (or more) after the published time, while in the other extreme, you can expect trains to be at least part way out of the platform by the advertised time (e.g. King's Cross / Euston).

Good practice already exists here, but it's very sporadic and inconsistent.

You don't even need to change "despatch rules"; if the WTT time is 30 seconds (or more) after the public time, and the process starts at/just after the public time, then everyone is happy, surely? (see @Krokodil 's post above).

 

[Lewisham2221]

Yes, I am well aware that some railway staff are keen to say they would be to blame in this situation, but I don't think that this is helpful, not indicative that we do things better in this country by locking up a varying length of time before the advertised time.

I didn't say anything about anything being better in this country, or anything about varying amounts of time?

Is there any evidence for this?

It comes across as whataboutery to me.

I've witnessed such arguments, more than once, yes. Some were witnessed in person with my own eyes and ears, others on social media. Before you ask, no, I'm not going to go trawling through years of social media posts to find an example to link to, so feel free to disbelieve me if you wish.

If it makes no difference, why are you against it?

I never said I was against it...

Surely you'd take it into account when planning the timetable? This already happens in some cases, e.g. I gave the example earlier of Stevenage (GTR).

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was saying I don't understand the argument that the whole network would descend into chaos if everything started leaving 30 seconds later than it currently does. Surely if everything is 30 seconds later than currently, it makes absolutely no difference because every other movement would also be 30 seconds later?

 

[CW2]

Isn't there a cumulative effect of applying this practice at successive stations? Wouldn't a train dispatched in this manner get progressively later through it's journey, until it lost its path entirely?

 

[Huntergreed]

Isn't there a cumulative effect of applying this practice at successive stations? Wouldn't a train dispatched in this manner get progressively later through it's journey, until it lost its path entirely?

Not if this is properly planned for in the timetable (as achieved well in many countries) - of course this could not be achieved in the current system in the UK as the timetable does not allow for this level of allowance, but it is possible with enough of a change in process.