Why UK stations have far longer connection time than European ones

[hkstudent]

When doing train journeys in continental Europe, you would often find connection time of 2 minutes at many stations. Even stations like Zurich HB (32 platforms, 3 levels), Berlin HB would be doing 7 minutes.
Why would UK having such a ineffective 10 or 15 minutes transfer at main stations compare to the European ones, making many connections often be something like 35 - 70 minutes for just failing the minimum connection requirements.

 

[Horizon22]

I wonder how many times those connection times of 2 or even 7 minutes at the larger stations aren't met by passengers of reduced majority. To me the timer starts as soon as you step off a train.

 

[rg177]

In GB connections generally aren't held so the slightly longer connection time allows for a sort of "insurance" against these minor delays and to allow everyone to move through stations safely.

On the continent, holding connections is more common and/or trains are generally more reliable. I spent a great deal of this week on Swiss Railways and either connections were made or trains would wait. This works fine generally as schedules have sufficient allowance for a chunk of this delay to be made up en route.

I also found that doors generally don't shut until within a few seconds of departure time, which has resulted in me entering Zürich HB at 16:37 for a 16:40 departure and strolling aboard at 16:39:30 as I knew the departure sequence wasn't set to initiate until at least 16:39:50.

 

[philosopher]

A 15 minute connection time gives passengers a good opportunity to make their connection even if their train is 5 to 10 minutes late. If the connection time is 5 minutes a passenger misses a connecting train, then they could potentially claim compensation which obviously costs the railway money.

 

[hkstudent]

A 15 minute connection time gives passengers a good opportunity to make their connection even if their train is 5 to 10 minutes late. If the connection time is 5 minutes a passenger misses a connecting train, then they could potentially claim compensation which obviously costs the railway money.

Yeah,. But at the end, that will cost passengers extra time wasted, and cost higher social coat in travel.
Moreover, long transfer time may also deters passengers' will taking trains instead of cars.

In GB connections generally aren't held so the slightly longer connection time allows for a sort of "insurance" against these minor delays and to allow everyone to move through stations safely.

On the continent, holding connections is more common and/or trains are generally more reliable. I spent a great deal of this week on Swiss Railways and either connections were made or trains would wait. This works fine generally as schedules have sufficient allowance for a chunk of this delay to be made up en route.

I also found that doors generally don't shut until within a few seconds of departure time, which has resulted in me entering Zürich HB at 16:37 for a 16:40 departure and strolling aboard at 16:39:30 as I knew the departure sequence wasn't set to initiate until at least 16:39:50.

Indeed. Also the problem of door closing procedures.
To be fair, 10 seconds would enough for a DOO (driver only) procedure in Switzerland/ Germany and 20 seconds for conductor service. Using 30 seconds in the UK is kind of high.
There seems to be so many buffer time in the UK and making that less effective, in a comparative approach.

 

[Fyldeboy]

This works fine generally as schedules have sufficient allowance for a chunk of this delay to be made up en route.

that will cost passengers extra time wasted, and cost higher social coat in travel.
...
There seems to be so many buffer time in the UK and making that less effective, in a comparative approach.

But as you see from rg177, the excessive 'buffer time' you refer to is there on continental railways, it is just in the journey time to enable services that have been held for late connections to make their time back.

There are obviously places where British railways could improve, but we do have a very experienced group of people running the railways and they do look at best practice around the world.

 

[Requeststop]

Because of poor rail timetabling: As I saw at Bristol last Thursday. My XC train from Truro arrived just as a train to Cardiff left immediately we stopped. I'm sure there are innumerable cases just the same all over the country.

 

[Fyldeboy]

Because of poor rail timetabling: As I saw at Bristol last Thursday. My XC train from Truro arrived just as a train to Cardiff left immediately we stopped. I'm sure there are innumerable cases just the same all over the country.

But the chances are there would be a direct GWR service Truro to Cardiff, so no need for a XC/GWR connection

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Because of poor rail timetabling: As I saw at Bristol last Thursday. My XC train from Truro arrived just as a train to Cardiff left immediately we stopped. I'm sure there are innumerable cases just the same all over the country.

Ah timetable is unable to make everything connect with everything unless you follow the Swiss approach where you build the infrastructure round the timetable (very expensive).

In your case XC from Truro connecting for Cardiff at Bristol isn’t a key node for connections as there are plenty of direct services between Truro and Cardiff which is the services people would expect most passengers to be on.

But the chances are there would be a direct GWR service Truro to Cardiff, so no need for a XC/GWR connection

Indeed they run at least every 2 hours the direct services and in the morning peak hourly.

 

[Jozhua]

Switzerland runs everything on what is known as a 'pulse' network - there are a number of other terms, but essentially services are timed to enable better connections.

Obviously this makes for a great experience changing, but requires a good amount of capacity, good timekeeping (which requires capacity), and can come at the expense of journey times.

The UK network is running very intensive service, relative to the available infrastructure. Additionally, the UK is more focused on serving those intercity routes, often at the expense of regional/local services and connectivity.

For more rural areas, where frequencies are low, the UK should do a much better job of matching timetables. I remember that at one point, travelling from Manchester to Matlock on a Sunday, the Transpeak from Buxton leaves 5 minutes before the train from Manchester arrives, so you have to wait 1hr 55m for the next one. Insanity!

Part of what likely helps the Swiss/German networks too is a good amount of frequency.

 

[zwk500]

Yeah,. But at the end, that will cost passengers extra time wasted, and cost higher social coat in travel.
Moreover, long transfer time may also deters passengers' will taking trains instead of cars.

The majority of UK stations are in the region of 5 minutes minimum connectional allowance. There aren't many with connectional allowances greater than 10, and most of those are the major hubs like London terminals or Birmingham New Street, where the longest interchanges can easily take 10 minutes from alighting to boarding.

The UK network is running very intensive service, relative to the available infrastructure.

This is a key point - the UK is squeezing the infrastructure for all it's worth.

 

[hkstudent]

Ah timetable is unable to make everything connect with everything unless you follow the Swiss approach where you build the infrastructure round the timetable (very expensive).

In your case XC from Truro connecting for Cardiff at Bristol isn’t a key node for connections as there are plenty of direct services between Truro and Cardiff which is the services people would expect most passengers to be on.



Indeed they run at least every 2 hours the direct services and in the morning peak hourly.

This make me wonders, given that Swiss wage and material cost are higher than the UK. Why would British still be unable to build a lot of good infrastructure and keep lower cost to run?

 

[30907]

Others have explained the differences.

Your two examples are both stations where the minimum time is extremely tight and does not differentiate between same-level and multi-level connections. Zurich was 7 minutes in the 60s when it was a single-level station!

Back to the UK, 10 minutes at stations like Leeds is not excessive, though I can beat that comfortably.

This make me wonders, given that Swiss wage and material cost are higher than the UK. Why would British still be unable to build a lot of good infrastructure and keep lower cost to run?

Public policy in the UK has been rather less favourable towards rail for the last 70 years or more, and despite the cost of living Switzerland has also been significantly more prosperous.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This make me wonders, given that Swiss wage and material cost are higher than the UK. Why would British still be unable to build a lot of good infrastructure and keep lower cost to run?

Well, we spent a quoted £500 million at London Bridge to provide more parallel tracks, etc. and I still wouldn't want to depend on connecting from the very rear of a Cannon Street service running into Platform 1 into a train leaving from Platform 15 in 2 minutes! (Especially allowing the usual '30 seconds before departure' door closure process.)

Remember; no running!

 

[dm1]

It's also a question of station design. Most swiss stations are designed with a particular interchange time in mind where it is critical.

It is usually much cheaper to upgrade a station by providing an additional subway or footbridge to reduce interchange distances and the interchange time by 1-2 minutes than it is to upgrade an entire line to speed up journeys by those same 1-2 minutes.

That is why Zürich HB has no fewer than three separate subways per platform (excluding the SZU platforms) that generally have access via escalators/lifts from both directions, meaning a 400m platform will have 6 or 7 access points to a subway (or around the buffer stops for the surface platforms) for interchange purposes.

Even much smaller stations will often have two separate subways.

Not having ticket barriers anywhere also speeds things up a lot, particularly since you don't need to send people on needlessly circuitous routes to ensure they pass through a gate line.

 

[IanXC]

One of the problems the UK has in this area is that all stations are 5 minutes unless otherwise specified. If there is an accessible footbridge it will clearly be quicker and more reliable than making use of a level crossing to change platforms.

Another problem is that these times seem to very rarely be reviewed. Doncaster remained the same when platform zero was opened. I challenge anyone to get from zero to 5 using the lifts reliably in 7 minutes!

It seems to me like an issue which has long been neglected resulting in the values being either excessively long due to the default, or far too short due to developments since the values were set. A new fresh survey of how long these interchanges should take is clearly required.

 

[Basil Jet]

One of the problems the UK has in this area is that all stations are 5 minutes unless otherwise specified. If there is an accessible footbridge it will clearly be quicker and more reliable than making use of a level crossing to change platforms.

Are there any stations where a level crossing is used to change platforms for a meaningful interchange? (Obviously there are a lot of stations where a level crossing is the only or usual route between platforms, but no-one changes trains there unless they missed their stop).

 

[Dr Hoo]

Are there any stations where a level crossing is used to change platforms for a meaningful interchange? (Obviously there are a lot of stations where a level crossing is the only or usual route between platforms, but no-one changes trains there unless they missed their stop).

Ash springs immediately to mind (e.g. for Reading <-> Aldershot journeys).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder how many times those connection times of 2 or even 7 minutes at the larger stations aren't met by passengers of reduced majority. To me the timer starts as soon as you step off a train.

I find the Swiss system can be very stressful, to be honest. Cross-platform 2 minutes works, but if you have to go to another platform it really doesn't.

In the UK we could really do with being able to specify to a lower level. For instance, fast<->slow connections at Leighton Buzzard are always same platform, so they could be 1 minute and almost never miss.

 

[BRX]

My impression is that in many continental countries, the platforms which trains use is more fixed than it is in the UK. In other words, platform alterations are much more common in the UK than in some other places.

Where you have cross-platform interchanges a couple of minutes is fine, but only if you can rely on both trains being on those cross-platform tracks.

 

[Sm5]

Well, we spent a quoted £500 million at London Bridge to provide more parallel tracks, etc. and I still wouldn't want to depend on connecting from the very rear of a Cannon Street service running into Platform 1 into a train leaving from Platform 15 in 2 minutes! (Especially allowing the usual '30 seconds before departure' door closure process.)

Remember; no running!

Ive done it in 3 several times… , it needs RTT planning to know where going to land, and take off, plus putting yourself about 5/6 coaches up from the rear when arriving in LBG… heavy sweating follows.

if only more TL services stopped at NWD jn…. The gaps between trains through the core is becoming pretty poor.. that line used to be like 1 a minute, now you can go 15 between trains sometimes..

 

[td97]

The UK connection times are indiscriminate e.g. same platform connections are given the whole connection time even if your next train is physically behind the one you're on and will always use the same booked platform.
5 minutes at Salford Crescent has always baffled me.

 

[The Planner]

Its just standard time, you need to persuade the TOCs to alter them, its not a NR mandated figure.

 

[Jozhua]

This make me wonders, given that Swiss wage and material cost are higher than the UK. Why would British still be unable to build a lot of good infrastructure and keep lower cost to run?

Investment in UK rail is relatively lower and also very piecemeal which drives up prices.

It's also a question of priorities, the UK rail network is very radial and focused on London.

HS2 will probably enable the UK going to a more clockface network, with more frequent local/regional trains, if the right targeted investments are made to adapting the network to this new paradigm.

 

[Horizon22]

I find the Swiss system can be very stressful, to be honest. Cross-platform 2 minutes works, but if you have to go to another platform it really doesn't.

In the UK we could really do with being able to specify to a lower level. For instance, fast<->slow connections at Leighton Buzzard are always same platform, so they could be 1 minute and almost never miss.

I agree - there's a difference between me, a young, relatively fit male that understands the system and a more elderly individual who may be unsure of their surroundings.

 

[30907]

The UK connection times are indiscriminate e.g. same platform connections are given the whole connection time even if your next train is physically behind the one you're on and will always use the same booked platform.
5 minutes at Salford Crescent has always baffled me.

The 5-minute standard time is common across Europe - to the extent that the Interrail journey planner uses it across much of Europe, even when local use (Switzerland, Czechia...) allows shorter connections.

The only station I can think of with differential times is München Hbf.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only station I can think of with differential times is München Hbf.

Which does make a lot of sense, as it has regional platforms miles from anywhere, very much like Manc Picc 13/14.

 

[hkstudent]

I agree - there's a difference between me, a young, relatively fit male that understands the system and a more elderly individual who may be unsure of their surroundings.

Yeah. It would be good to set a tight connection time and allow additional interchange time to be added by manual, instead of a blanket high connection time which put off some time sensitive people to car.

 

[XAM2175]

Yeah. It would be good to set a tight connection time and allow additional interchange time to be added by manual, instead of a blanket high connection time which put off some time sensitive people to car.

When discussing it in terms of perceived journey time though, there are also people who can be put off by connections that look worryingly tight. There has to be a pragmatic and realistic balance.

 

[hkstudent]

When discussing it in terms of perceived journey time though, there are also people who can be put off by connections that look worryingly tight. There has to be a pragmatic and realistic balance.

I would say the European system would be more flexible, giving out tighter connection while the option of longer connection time is offered with an easy click from main menu, instead of a blanket high connection time.