This is what gets the current rail system a bad name

[dk1]

In this case, if you are following the correct procedure, the procedure needs to change, and urgently.

That’s never going to happen. Occasionally if there is too long to wait for another connecting service or during disruption the excellent staff at Ely will ask us to wait at the request of Control but it is quite rare as has so many knock on effects.

 

[43066]

In this case, if you are following the correct procedure, the procedure needs to change, and urgently.

But it might be that waiting for those dozen passengers means the couple of hundred passengers already on board @dk1’s train end up 15 minutes late at their final destination (many times I’ve seen literally a minute’s delay at origin result in being 10+ late on our longer distance service).

Ultimately, as I said upthread, it goes back to the question: do we want an on-time-as-possible railway, or one which ignores the timetable to wait for a minority of delayed passengers?

 

[yorkie]

I experienced something similar in December meaning around 10 passengers had to wait for the next Avanti service due to a connecting Northern train being late. It seems the general attitude was that it's Northern's problem if they have to pay Delay Repay for their train being late.

That is very much it; the emphasis is on individual trains departing on time (even if they will arrive early) and not on minimising the delay to passengers' journeys, as there is not deemed to be any financial interest for the rail industry in giving customers a good experience.

This often changes where it is the same TOC, hence the good examples in GWR's area, where the TOC issuing the poor customer service would be the same as the TOC handing out Delay Repay compensation and whose train was late.

I've not yet seen those who justify the connections being missed try to argue that GWR are wrong to hold trains in those examples, which is an interesting contradiction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2022 ==

But it might be that waiting for those dozen passengers means the couple of hundred passengers already on board @dk1’s train end up 15 minutes late at their final destination (many times I’ve seen literally a minute’s delay at origin result in being 10+ late on our longer distance service).

Ultimately, as I said upthread, it goes back to the question: do we want an on-time-as-possible railway, or one which ignores the timetable to wait for a minority of delayed passengers?

The passengers were 'already scurrying across', so a 15 minute delay doesn't seem a likely outcome.

 

[43066]

That is very much it; the emphasis is on individual trains departing on time (even if they will arrive early) and not on minimising the delay to passengers' journeys, as there is not deemed to be any financial interest for the rail industry in giving customers a good experience.

That’s true, but then you have to ask why has the system been set up this way in the first place? It’s to incentivise minimisation of overall delay, thereby giving a better experience to the greatest possible number.

You can guarantee the regular complaints about missed connections would be replaced by (many times more) complaints about late arrivals. There isn’t really an easy answer unfortunately other than “the greater good”.

 

[yorkie]

That’s true, but then you have to ask why has the system been set up this way in the first place? It’s to minimise overall delay.

We have fewer delays overall than countries like Switzerland?

 

[dk1]

The passengers were 'already scurrying across', so a 15 minute delay doesn't seem a likely outcome.

Trouble is we should start closing the doors up to 30secs before departure time. I had already left it until departure time. Those scurrying passengers where in my cameras as I began moving away. By the time they’d got on along with those less able to hurry then before you know it you are at least 90secs late if not more. It’s just unfortunate but it is what it is.

 

[GB]

We have fewer delays overall than countries like Switzerland?

What is your obsession with Switzerland?

An apologist a person who offers an argument in defence of something unpopular; in this case the unpopular view is to say things that give the impression it was right that the train should not have waited for connecting passengers and to suggest that trains should not wait in the circumstances described.

Giving reasons for something does not make a person an "apologist" just because you don't like or agree with those reasons. Not willing to hear both sides of an argument does make someone a bit of an <insert word here> though.

 

[43066]

We have fewer delays overall than countries like Switzerland?

We have more presumably, but we also have a far bigger and more intensively operated network, on creaking infrastructure, with many more interdependencies. We would have far more delays still if trains waited five minutes for delayed connections. That is the reason why the system has been set up as it has.

I realise you’ve just returned from Switzerland and I agree their network is fantastic, but much of it is lightly trafficked and aimed at tourists. It’s much easier to delay a train for a connection when there are no (or very few) conflicting moves to worry about.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What is your obsession with Switzerland?

FWIW, believe @yorkie has very recently returned from a trip to Switzerland.

 

[yorkie]

What is your obsession with Switzerland?

I don't have an obsession with Switzerland. Trains do seem to be much more likely to wait for passengers in the circumstances described in the opening post in many other countries; I have seen this for myself. Switzerland is a good example of where good practice is carried out.

Giving reasons for something does not make a person an "apologist" just because you don't like or agree with those reasons.

An apologist is someone who defends something that is unpopular; in this case it is clear that popular opinion would be for the passengers to have been able to make the connection.

Not willing to hear both sides of an argument does make someone a bit of an <insert word here> though.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here; perhaps you can elaborate?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2022 ==

We have more presumably, but we also have a far bigger and more intensively operated network, on creaking infrastructure, with many more interdependencies. We would have far more delays still if trains waited five minutes for delayed connections. That is the reason why the system has been set up as it has.

You'd be surprised how intensively some of the infrastructure is worked in Switzerland.

A wait of 5 minutes would not have been necessary in the situation described; it would have been under a minute, possibly just 30 seconds.

I realise you’ve just returned from to Switzerland and I agree their network is fantastic, but much of it is lightly trafficked and aimed at tourists. It’s much easier to delay a train for a connection when there are no (or very few) conflicting moves to worry about.

I am not sure you've been to Switzerland, or if you have you may not have seen what I've seen but I won't comment any more on their set up as it's detracting from the issue; the point I made still stands in my opinion.

FWIW, believe @yorkie has recently returned from a trip to Switzerland.

I have indeed; though I am well travelled in various places and I have not seen anything like what was described in the opening post anywhere other than in GB.

 

[pompeyfan]

Last year someone in control at the WICC authorised a hold at Salisbury for a down Exeter to wait for an up Cardiff. Even with the signaller using permissive working the Exeter got away 8 minutes late, this then snowballed into a 60 minute TIN across 8 trains because of the single lines and platform congestion. I assume this is what people like @yorkie are encouraging? The Cardiff was only about 4 or 5 minutes down too.

 

[HST274]

Pathetic. The guard needs a kick up the arse.

I remember the first time I ever travelled by train in Switzerland. Our Zurich to Bern train was quite late and I was worried we would miss the onward connection, especially as it was late at night. The guard assured me there would be no problem, which of course there wasn't, (I was not aware of the way Swiss trains interconnnect at main stations at the time).

In Italy we missed a connection, but the guard put us in first class on the next train because we didn't have a seat reservation. Kind of service we need here

 

[A0]

Which of course is the nub of the problem. The imperative to meet punctuality targets outweighing any notion of passenger convenience (because not meeting punctuality targets can be an attributable cost for the ToC). Hence the thread title.

Except one of the biggest complaints against the railway is "the trains are always late" - so the rail industry have worked hard to improve that and part of it is ensuring trains leave on time - yet all of a sudden on these boards, that's wrong and potentially trains should be held for up to 5 minutes.......

And to address Yorkie's comment, I don't work in the rail industry. And my view is a train should leave on time wherever possible.

 

[yorkie]

Last year someone in control at the WICC authorised a hold at Salisbury for a down Exeter to wait for an up Cardiff. Even with the signaller using permissive working the Exeter got away 8 minutes late, this then snowballed into a 60 minute TIN across 8 trains because of the single lines and platform congestion. I assume this is what people like @yorkie are encouraging? The Cardiff was only about 4 or 5 minutes down too.

That sounds quite different to the situation described in the original post; I am not sure how you think it is similar?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2022 ==

Except one of the biggest complaints against the railway is "the trains are always late" - so the rail industry have worked hard to improve that and part of it is ensuring trains leave on time -

Did you read the above posts? Yes there is an obsession with making trains leave not just on time but often early (especially at king's Cross, Euston etc) but they often come to a stand or crawl as the path isn't yet available for them.

Making trains depart bang on time isn't a panacea to avoid delays; in any case what passengers want is for the overall delay to their journey to be minimised rather than any particular train to depart bang on time, as stated above.

yet all of a sudden on these boards, that's wrong and potentially trains should be held for up to 5 minutes.......

Who is advocating that?

I think 5 minutes would be pretty exceptional and not the norm, unless you are talking about the last train of the day, or something like a train to the Far North or Kyle lines waiting for a connection from Glasgow or Edinburgh.

And to address Yorkie's comment, I don't work in the rail industry. And my view is a train should leave on time wherever possible.

You are entitled to think that the actions described in the opening post are what should happen, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[pompeyfan]

That sounds quite different to the situation described in the original post; I am not sure how you think it is similar?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2022 ==

Agreed they are very different situations from the OP, however your comment regarding Ely which wasn’t too disimilar to my example at Salisbury implies that you advocate services to be held in similar situations.

 

[yorkie]

Agreed they are very different situations from the OP, however your comment regarding Ely which wasn’t too disimilar to my example at Salisbury implies that you advocate services to be held in similar situations.

But from the description that passengers were already making their way as the train departed, that would have been a minimal delay not of the sort described in your post.

Obviously there has to be a cut off somewhere and there can be no one size fits all approach but common sense was clearly not adhered to in the issue described in the opening post.

 

[43066]

Obviously there has to be a cut off somewhere and there can be no one size fits all approach but common sense was clearly not adhered to in the issue described in the opening post.

This is the key point. The question then becomes where?

Surely that cut off should remain as being that trains simply won’t wait for connections, if that minimises overall delay and inconvenience to the greatest number?

Not waiting that extra crucial minute will always be a flashpoint for those left behind, whether trains depart strictly on time, wait one minute, five minutes, or whatever.

 

[Ken H]

But it might be that waiting for those dozen passengers means the couple of hundred passengers already on board @dk1’s train end up 15 minutes late at their final destination (many times I’ve seen literally a minute’s delay at origin result in being 10+ late on our longer distance service).

Ultimately, as I said upthread, it goes back to the question: do we want an on-time-as-possible railway, or one which ignores the timetable to wait for a minority of delayed passengers?

Why would it be 15 late at York? There are no conflicts. and there is recovery time built in. Surely waiting 1 minute in Seamer for customers (Those people who buy tickets) to change is what these allowances are for?

 

[mrcheek]

The problem is, OP is using this particular example to suggest that all trains should be held to allow onward connections, if it falls into an arbitrary time limit.

Now, in this situation, the case is moot. The Scarborough shuttle should have slack. However, while in this situation the missed connection was regrettable, it's not in any way helpful to suggest that this situation is similar to any other connections.

Yes, this particular connection may well have been held after a rules change to avoid penalising train staff for using their discretion, however, that's a counterfactual, and impossible to prove. This sort of thing can only be decisively improved with a timetable change.

I dont think OP said anything of the sort.

It is agreed that trains can not be held indefinitely. It is agreed that long distance services at large stations should depart on time. But Seamer is a clear example of a situation where one train should always be held if the other is in view

 

[Ken H]

This is the key point. The question then becomes where?

Surely that cut off should remain as being that trains simply won’t wait for connections, if that minimises overall delay and inconvenience to the greatest number?

“Waiting an extra minute” will always be a flashpoint for those left behind, whether trains depart strictly on time, wait one minute, five minutes, or whatever.

Local rules then. Salisbury is difficult because of the single line to Exeter which is a difficult railway. and the trains have to be reasonably on time onve they get to Worting Jct
But a a sleepy junction with hourly services is very different. And expecting passengers to wait at a station with few facilities is not good.

And Control will have known the Train from Brid was late. it had actually come from Sheffield and was 15 late from there.

 

[ExRes]

In Italy we missed a connection, but the guard put us in first class on the next train because we didn't have a seat reservation. Kind of service we need here

Lucky you, when a group of us had problems at San Pietro Station trying to get back to Civitavecchia we were given the complete cold shouldered couldn't care less attitude

 

[Deepgreen]

This scenario depicted by the OP was all-too-regular when I used to commute via Redhill. My GW North Downs line train would arrive and a Southern Victoria train would be sitting at the other side of the island platform (pre-pfm 0) - the doors on my train would open and passengers would stream across to the London train just as the platform staff indicated to close the doors and we'd miss it for want of ten seconds - time and again. The response to complaints was always that every single second counted, which was utter rubbish as, apart from anything else, the train in question was booked to stand outside East Croydon for four minutes and had no other timetable clashes on the way there! The fragmentation of the railway into TOCs driven by individual spurious targets has favoured everyone but passengers in so many cases.

Of course, now that GW trains use p0 the interchange is hugely worse still, as it was deemed too expensive to provide (or useless designers didn't consider it) a 2/3 car stopping board for them (£20?) so they stop along the platform, far away from the stairs and outside the canopy!! When challenged on that, the formal response was that the p0 design team has been disbanded and therefore nothing further can be done (so nothing, however small, can ever be changed at Redhill now?!) - staggering ineptitude from the railway.

 

[blackfive460]

Connections at Seamer have been problematic for years, right back to BR days and were usually most unreliable in the Eastbound direction coming from York.

And Control will have known the Train from Brid was late.

Indeed yes, Northern's controllers could well have been aware that the train from Brid was a few minutes late but to have informed the guard on the service to York Northern would have needed to have informed TPE's controllers who could then have informed the guard and I'm sorry to say that I can not see that happening.

Still, never mind, once TPE return to running Scarborough trains through to and from Liverpool there should be enough delays for them to be able to start turning trains round at York and Malton again so missed connections at Seamer will be the least of our worries!

 

[Falcon1200]

LNER almost always depart King's Cross early and I've known this happen only to come to a halt at Finsbury Park;

I found that a surprising assertion, so checked on Realtime trains for a sample period on Friday (4th March); Sure enough, quite a few LNER trains did indeed depart early - All of 1 (one) minute early. I fail to see how this is an issue, given that doors are shut well before departure time anyway, and I doubt many passengers travelling on long distance services such as LNER's turn up in the last 60 seconds before departure time !

How many trains do you think a TPE or Northern controller is managing at any one time?

Indeed, people do sometimes seem to have an inflated idea of how many people there actually are in Control.

One thing I have not seen mentioned is any action by the Guard of the Northern service; Presumably, having checked tickets, they were aware of passengers for the connection at Seamer, and that their train was running late, did they ask via their Control for a hold on the TPE service ?

 

[muz379]

They should not have to find out. All the information they need to manage the train should be delivered to them electronically. To a tablet or to their ticket machine. And control should have seen the train from Brid was a bit late and authorised him, again electronically, to wait up to 4 mins.

How close to departure will this information be provided , generally withing 3/4 minutes of departure you won't be looking at any electronic devices .

This also assumes control don't have a lot else going on and can monitor stuff like this when the truth is they simply don't . In this case it would have been two Tocs controls which would have had to speak which again aside from agreeing ticket acceptance Tocs control tend not to talk to each other that much.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

How close to departure will this information be provided , generally withing 3/4 minutes of departure you won't be looking at any electronic devices .

This also assumes control don't have a lot else going on and can monitor stuff like this when the truth is they simply don't . In this case it would have been two Tocs controls which would have had to speak which again aside from agreeing ticket acceptance Tocs control tend not to talk to each other that much.

Indeed, and bearing in mind use of electronic devices whilst on platforms doing dispatch is possibly the biggest no-no there is!

 

[Phil56]

I’d like to know what people are actually proposing here.

For a start, it would be good if guards kept doors open for a few seconds if there are clearly several passengers running towards the train who've clearly come from another train that's just arrived. It's not rocket-science. That's a completely different scenario from waiting 5/10/15 minutes for a late running train that's nowhere near the station. Closing doors in front of passengers just makes the guard look like a jobsworth.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think this discussion exposes some real deficiencies of the railway system that are a bit OT to this thread, but basically they are trying to fit more trains onto a network than it is capable of operating when conditions are less than ideal. That creates over-tight timing clearances at some critical junctions, etc. Add to that the blight caused by delay compensation payments, which is an active encouragement not to hold connections.

 

[Scott1]

In Italy we missed a connection, but the guard put us in first class on the next train because we didn't have a seat reservation. Kind of service we need here

Big fan of this, a cup of tea often works wonders with folk if your on a train/station with the facilities to give them one.

 

[Western Sunset]

I suppose in France, you'd have the French Connection...