Why UK stations have far longer connection time than European ones

[XAM2175]

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.

Yes, this is reasonable.

 

[30907]

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.

Even NRE does this, rather crudely.

However, outside these forums, how big an issue is this?

Could you give a worked example (other than a London terminus) where the present time of 10min or more is too long (for an average walker at a busy time) and what it should be reduced to?

 

[The exile]

Even NRE does this, rather crudely.

However, outside these forums, how big an issue is this?

Could you give a worked example (other than a London terminus) where the present time of 10min or more is too long (for an average walker at a busy time) and what it should be reduced to?

The obvious ones are where it’s a de facto through working. Can’t give specific examples but there have been plenty on here in the past.

 

[BRX]

Even NRE does this, rather crudely.

However, outside these forums, how big an issue is this?

Could you give a worked example (other than a London terminus) where the present time of 10min or more is too long (for an average walker at a busy time) and what it should be reduced to?

Possibly:

Changing from Overground (south London Line) to Overground (West London Line) at Clapham Junction. The services effectively use the same platform (staggered arrangement). It only takes a couple of minutes to walk between them but Clapham Jn has a miminum time of 10 minutes.

There are therefore some feasible connections which NRE doesn't show you. For example, the arrival from the SLL at 1435 is followed by a departure for the WLL at 1440. But NRE will tell you to get the 1446 for the WLL.

By the way, East Croydon is a station where you can easily get caught out (or at least stressed out) by its 5 minute connection times, because of its layout.

There's a direct overbridge halfway along the platforms but it's easy not to realise that's there, and set off up one of the lengthy ramps that go to the main gateline. It's a bit of a distance, all the way up one of those ramps and then all the way down another, especially if you have heavy luggage or are pushing a bike (I don't think there's a lift alternative).

 

[30907]

Possibly:

Changing from Overground (south London Line) to Overground (West London Line) at Clapham Junction. The services effectively use the same platform (staggered arrangement). It only takes a couple of minutes to walk between them but Clapham Jn has a miminum time of 10 minutes.

There are therefore some feasible connections which NRE doesn't show you. For example, the arrival from the SLL at 1435 is followed by a departure for the WLL at 1440. But NRE will tell you to get the 1446 for the WLL.

That's a good one as it's the same operator and designated platform (so they can be asked to specify a reduced timetable, as South Eastern do almost everywhere).

I was more looking for times that applied to a whole station, though.

 

[hkstudent]

Even NRE does this, rather crudely.

However, outside these forums, how big an issue is this?

Could you give a worked example (other than a London terminus) where the present time of 10min or more is too long (for an average walker at a busy time) and what it should be reduced to?

I would say, many cross platform interchange stations can do the interchange within 2 minutes. But with the default 5 minutes minimum interchange time, many good opportunities have been wasted.
Example like Salford Crescent, Liverpool South Parkway, Stafford (for the famous LNR-WNR interchange), etc etc. )


And, not every TOCs are keen on using extra resources to define station specific interchange times.

 

[BRX]

That's a good one as it's the same operator and designated platform (so they can be asked to specify a reduced timetable, as South Eastern do almost everywhere).

I note that southern<>southern is already specified as 5 mins instead of 10 at Clapham Junction. This makes sense as you don't have to cross the lengthy middle section of the bridge that's only necessary to get to SWR or overground services.

This has got me looking at various stations I know/use. For example Blackfriars



This doesn't make much sense to me. The lengthiest potential walk at Blackfriars is when you are changing between Northbound and Southbound Thameslink services (if you alight somewhere near the middle of the train).

Connecting between SE services (ie the bay platforms) and TL northbound is the easiest.

The table doesn't reflect any of this. I'd say it should be default 5 mins interchange, perhaps with a shorter time for SE<>SE (which would rarely happen anyway) or SE<>N-bound TL

 

[hkstudent]

I note that southern<>southern is already specified as 5 mins instead of 10 at Clapham Junction. This makes sense as you don't have to cross the lengthy middle section of the bridge that's only necessary to get to SWR or overground services.

This has got me looking at various stations I know/use. For example Blackfriars

View attachment 121338

This doesn't make much sense to me. The lengthiest potential walk at Blackfriars is when you are changing between Northbound and Southbound Thameslink services (if you alight somewhere near the middle of the train).

Connecting between SE services (ie the bay platforms) and TL northbound is the easiest.

The table doesn't reflect any of this. I'd say it should be default 5 mins interchange, perhaps with a shorter time for SE<>SE (which would rarely happen anyway) or SE<>N-bound TL

I would say even can be more aggressive. As many stations are having cross-platform or next train behind same platform interchange, a 2-minute interchnage for default would be enough, and then requiring TOCs to add times accordingly.
Of course, for most London terminals, 10 minutes is more than sufficient like Waterloo, Victoria, Paddington (expect Elizabeth Line), King's Cross, which has no level difference change.

I note that southern<>southern is already specified as 5 mins instead of 10 at Clapham Junction. This makes sense as you don't have to cross the lengthy middle section of the bridge that's only necessary to get to SWR or overground services.

This has got me looking at various stations I know/use. For example Blackfriars

View attachment 121338

This doesn't make much sense to me. The lengthiest potential walk at Blackfriars is when you are changing between Northbound and Southbound Thameslink services (if you alight somewhere near the middle of the train).

Connecting between SE services (ie the bay platforms) and TL northbound is the easiest.

The table doesn't reflect any of this. I'd say it should be default 5 mins interchange, perhaps with a shorter time for SE<>SE (which would rarely happen anyway) or SE<>N-bound TL

I think there will be problem here, as specifying a longer TL-TL interchange time, then the same direction change which can be made within 1 minute will be made excessive.

Problem here is: you can't see direction oriented interchange time in the UK system, for now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you give a worked example (other than a London terminus) where the present time of 10min or more is too long (for an average walker at a busy time) and what it should be reduced to?

Leighton Buzzard. Fast to slow or slow to fast could be one minute - it will either miss completely as the trains are the wrong way round or it will work. Always same platform unless things are a real mess. Lots of people used to do it daily for Bletchley though it's no longer necessary as most of the semifast services have had Bletchley stops inserted and all of them will have Bletchley stops from Dec.

 

[BRX]

I think there will be problem here, as specifying a longer TL-TL interchange time, then the same direction change which can be made within 1 minute will be made excessive.

Problem here is: you can't see direction oriented interchange time in the UK system, for now.

Maybe if anything needs to change it's the inability to take into account direction.

I can see now why Blackfriars has been set at 3 mins - it's in anticipation of many people changing here between TL trains going the same direction. The problem with this is that changing between TL services in opposite directions is something people are likely to want to do at Blackfriars. It's something I quite frequently do myself...and I now understand why I'm often surprised by how close a connection I'll be offered on journey planners, at Blackfriars.

It seems to me that not much would be lost by increasing it, because you could leave Farringdon at 3 mins (or even less) and let journey planners suggest people change there instead of Blackfriars. Any same-direction change that works at Blackfriars can also be done at Farringdon. And there would never be a reason to do a direction-change on TL at Farringdon.

Here is a curiosity that I have noticed in the past, and assumed it must be something to do with minimum interchange times, but actually I don't see how it can be.

This is an itinerary given by NRE that suggests I walk between London Bridge and Blackfriars




But there is a train leaving LBG at 1705 arriving BFR 1711. This would fit with minimum interchange times at both stations, and get me to Blackfriars for the same onward connection. So why does it suggest I walk?

Furthermore... that train connection would get me to Blackfriars well in time for the 1721 to Loughborough Junction. So why is NRE sending me on an unnecessary foot journey that actually means I get to my destination 15 minutes later than I need to?

 

[Austriantrain]

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.

You also have to have stations able to deal with large passenger flows changing platforms within a short time. The Swiss, for instance, at major stations have more than just one passenger underpass, otherwise short changes from and to 400 meter trains could not possibly work.

Also, the Swiss have a very railway-knowledgeable population, many of which travel very frequently and in their great majority with little luggage (because a large proportion even on long-distance trains are really commuters). Also, they are fairly good at time-keeping. You can’t copy that everywhere.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Hopefully the two minute connections are cross platform? There was a time when two minutes at Barnham was deemed to be an official connection into a Bognor Regis train.

 

[Mike99]

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.

Your right, I recently mentioned Doncaster platform 0, on the thread 'Stations with a Platform 0', I walk with a stick but not badly disabled, I'm just slow, but that seemed a long walk at Doncaster irrespective of the connection time it still seems a long way.

 

[The exile]

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.

Looking back many years (30-ish), longer-distance German trains were usually timed slackly enough that (small amounts of) time spent awaiting connections could fairly easily be recovered. The timetable made it very clear that S-Bahn trains would neither wait nor be waited for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully the two minute connections are cross platform? There was a time when two minutes at Barnham was deemed to be an official connection into a Bognor Regis train.

There are some connections, e.g. the Leighton Buzzard example I gave above, or a connection at Ormskirk/Kirkby, that effectively can't not be same platform or cross platform. These could be quite short as long as the trains do wait if one is very slightly late. On the other hand, I find 10 minutes at New St to be tight and will usually plan longer, particularly as I often like to pick up food/drink there.

 

[rg177]

You also have to have stations able to deal with large passenger flows changing platforms within a short time. The Swiss, for instance, at major stations have more than just one passenger underpass, otherwise short changes from and to 400 meter trains could not possibly work.

Also, the Swiss have a very railway-knowledgeable population, many of which travel very frequently and in their great majority with little luggage (because a large proportion even on long-distance trains are really commuters). Also, they are fairly good at time-keeping. You can’t copy that everywhere.

Yes, in the example I gave initially re: very lax connections in Zurich, it works because of the sheer number of passages/stairwells etc between platforms. Even connecting from Platforms 41-44 (low level) to 1-18 (high level) was incredibly easy and could often be done in three minutes at normal walking pace.

As for Swiss attitudes to railways, definitely true as well. My most regular connection last week was a +3 at Sargans from an ex-St Gallen service into a Zurich. It was regularly 2-3 minutes late but everyone would powerwalk off one connection from the middle carriages, down the stairs and into the first door of the connection like clockwork. We'd leave 90-120 seconds late and make that time up en route.

 

[hkstudent]

Maybe if anything needs to change it's the inability to take into account direction.

I can see now why Blackfriars has been set at 3 mins - it's in anticipation of many people changing here between TL trains going the same direction. The problem with this is that changing between TL services in opposite directions is something people are likely to want to do at Blackfriars. It's something I quite frequently do myself...and I now understand why I'm often surprised by how close a connection I'll be offered on journey planners, at Blackfriars.

It seems to me that not much would be lost by increasing it, because you could leave Farringdon at 3 mins (or even less) and let journey planners suggest people change there instead of Blackfriars. Any same-direction change that works at Blackfriars can also be done at Farringdon. And there would never be a reason to do a direction-change on TL at Farringdon.

Here is a curiosity that I have noticed in the past, and assumed it must be something to do with minimum interchange times, but actually I don't see how it can be.

This is an itinerary given by NRE that suggests I walk between London Bridge and Blackfriars

View attachment 121342


But there is a train leaving LBG at 1705 arriving BFR 1711. This would fit with minimum interchange times at both stations, and get me to Blackfriars for the same onward connection. So why does it suggest I walk?

Furthermore... that train connection would get me to Blackfriars well in time for the 1721 to Loughborough Junction. So why is NRE sending me on an unnecessary foot journey that actually means I get to my destination 15 minutes later than I need to?

The case may only works if all Thameslink services do run through Blackfriars to the north.

At the moment, the Orpington and some Sutton services still terminate at Blackfriars, which adding extra time in connection may void some connections.

At the end, the connection time setting system is not sophiscate enough.

 

[30907]

I would say, many cross platform interchange stations can do the interchange within 2 minutes. But with the default 5 minutes minimum interchange time, many good opportunities have been wasted.
Example like Salford Crescent, Liverpool South Parkway, Stafford (for the famous LNR-WNR interchange), etc etc.

Undoubtedly at small stations where interchanges are consistently cross-platform or same-platform (which rules out two of those, until someone can program a differential-by-direction connection time) you can do a connection within 2 minutes even if you are less mobile.

 

[miklcct]

I really think that connection time should be defined as platform-to-platform, from 1 minute for same-platform interchange to 15 minutes between levels at St Pancras, and platform change should not be allowed unless a notice can be made with the longest transferring time allowed (i.e. at a station with 5 minutes connection time, a platform change must be made 5 minutes before the train departs).

For example, a platform change between Southampton platforms 3 and 4 should not be allowed within 5 minutes of the departure time. If it does so, the train needs to be held to allow people to transfer platforms. This guarantees a platform change will not foul connections, and prevents signallers to change the booked platform unless there is a very good reason to do so.

 

[BRX]

The case may only works if all Thameslink services do run through Blackfriars to the north.

At the moment, the Orpington and some Sutton services still terminate at Blackfriars, which adding extra time in connection may void some connections.

At the end, the connection time setting system is not sophiscate enough.

Yes indeed.

You're right that the TL services that terminate in the bays would mess up a short interchange time applied to changes between TL trains even in the same direction (and 3 minutes, as it currently stands, is not really enough to get from the southbound through platform to one of the bay platforms).

My suggestion to make Farringdon the "efficient interchange" point as far as journey planners are concerned, allowing Blackfriars to have longer ones would be a workaround until a more sophisticated system comes along though.

 

[BrianW]

Saying it again (sorry) I'm amazed 'it' works at all. The complexity we have in GB of trains from here to there, there and there, crews to arrange, let alone when foul-ups unsurprisingly occur; fast walkers, slow walkers, folk unsure where to go and/or how to get to that platform .. thank you Planners for making an 18th century 'system' work as well as it does.

Back to the question- too tight scheduling and missed 'connections' will mean longer journey times and more frustration. I've seen the back of too many trains departing on time.

Related question - do we have a greater 'intensity' of stations in GB than 'sur le continent'; more trains? or fewer? More changing trains, or less?

 

[hkstudent]

Saying it again (sorry) I'm amazed 'it' works at all. The complexity we have in GB of trains from here to there, there and there, crews to arrange, let alone when foul-ups unsurprisingly occur; fast walkers, slow walkers, folk unsure where to go and/or how to get to that platform .. thank you Planners for making an 18th century 'system' work as well as it does.

Back to the question- too tight scheduling and missed 'connections' will mean longer journey times and more frustration. I've seen the back of too many trains departing on time.

Related question - do we have a greater 'intensity' of stations in GB than 'sur le continent'; more trains? or fewer? More changing trains, or less?

If you have tighter connections, more options are unlocked. In most cases people with be faster in overall journey time and small minority may suffer (but they would not have made the interchange anyway if the official connection time is longer)

 

[Dr Hoo]

People ‘opting in to tight connections’ would be a nightmare. Presumably this would be saved in your search options.

Would people who had ticked the ‘fit gym bunny’ box be entitled to Delay Repay for (say) an hour’s journey extension after missing a two-minute connection because they stopped to help someone carry a buggy up the stairs or whatever?

I’ve seen two people drop dead hurrying for trains and it’s not a pleasant experience.

Take it steady and cool is my preference.

 

[Hadders]

Dore & Totley has a minimum interchange time of 9 minutes. It's a one platform station so this seems very excessive.

 

[_toommm_]

Dore & Totley has a minimum interchange time of 9 minutes. It's a one platform station so this seems very excessive.

Might that be because of a combination of the likelihood of trains being delayed trying to access the station from Sheffield (where they have to cross a mainline where there's a few intercity trains) and trains passing over Dore West Junction, where they can sometimes be delayed by long freight trains waiting to join the MML thus blocking the junction? It's an area where I've seen things get delayed pretty quickly, so it's just adding in some extra time in case of delays and services going into the station in the wrong order.

 

[IanXC]

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

That rather assumes that the TOCs are satisfied that Network Rail always follow the agreed Regulation Statements.

If they say that express train A will always go ahead of stopping train B, but the station operator finds that NwR don't reliably follow this then they're clearly not going to incur an additional financial liability by reducing the connection time...

 

[Falcon1200]

My most regular connection last week was a +3 at Sargans from an ex-St Gallen service into a Zurich. It was regularly 2-3 minutes late but everyone would powerwalk off one connection from the middle carriages, down the stairs and into the first door of the connection like clockwork.

Presumably none of the connecting passengers was elderly, disabled, had small children with or without prams/buggies, had heavy luggage, and every passenger knew exactly what they were doing and where to go? Connectional allowances have to take account of more than just fit and knowledgeable travellers!

 

[The Planner]

That rather assumes that the TOCs are satisfied that Network Rail always follow the agreed Regulation Statements.

If they say that express train A will always go ahead of stopping train B, but the station operator finds that NwR don't reliably follow this then they're clearly not going to incur an additional financial liability by reducing the connection time...

I am not convinced it even plays a part in it, or even that a lot of TOCs even know its in their gift to alter it.

 

[hkstudent]

Presumably none of the connecting passengers was elderly, disabled, had small children with or without prams/buggies, had heavy luggage, and every passenger knew exactly what they were doing and where to go? Connectional allowances have to take account of more than just fit and knowledgeable travellers!

But 90% of them would be fit and knowledgeable. So rather than a blanket high connection time, why not using a low connection with option of longer connection time (like what DB journey planner works), instead of making loads of travellers suffering long waiting time?

 

[The Planner]

But 90% of them would be fit and knowledgeable. So rather than a blanket high connection time, why not using a low connection with option of longer connection time (like what DB journey planner works), instead of making loads of travellers suffering long waiting time?

You are assuming people would think about choosing the second option. 90% is a stretch as well.