How can we make changing trains more bearable for the travelling public?

[PTR 444]

One of the biggest factors preventing people from travelling by train is the fact that they have to change trains mid-journey. Changing trains is understandably an inconvenience for people with reduced mobility, kids, or luggage due to the extra time and effort it takes to walk all the way from one seat to another, often through busy crowds and up steps. It’s no wonder those passengers choose to drive instead.

Tackling this issue is key to increasing rail ridership, yet as we all know it is impossible to provide direct trains from everywhere to everywhere. We therefore need to start by improving transfer quality at major interchange stations to make life much easier for those passengers. Better accessibility, higher frequency services and cross-platform interchange are just some of the steps that could be taken, but of course not all solutions will work for every station, and as we all know these solutions can be extremely costly.

Alternatively, we could educate the next generation on public transport use from an early age. This will instill good habits into our children and rather than rely on a lift from mum and dad to get to school, they will be confident in making the same journey by walking 10 minutes from home to the bus stop, catch the bus to the train station, then transfer onto the train which will drop them off 5 minutes from their school. As more and more people get used to a ‘changing trains’ culture over time, we will be better equipped to move towards a European-style Takt network as far fewer destinations will demand trains to everywhere (Manchester Airport and Castlefield I’m looking at you). Of course, direct journey pairs such as intercity flows or airport to city connections will still be desirable due to the nature of these markets.

 

[Ken H]

One of the biggest factors preventing people from travelling by train is the fact that they have to change trains mid-journey. Changing trains is understandably an inconvenience for people with reduced mobility, kids, or luggage due to the extra time and effort it takes to walk all the way from one seat to another, often through busy crowds and up steps. It’s no wonder those passengers choose to drive instead.

Tackling this issue is key to increasing rail ridership, yet as we all know it is impossible to provide direct trains from everywhere to everywhere. We therefore need to start by improving transfer quality at major interchange stations to make life much easier for those passengers. Better accessibility, higher frequency services and cross-platform interchange are just some of the steps that could be taken, but of course not all solutions will work for every station, and as we all know these solutions can be extremely costly.

Alternatively, we could educate the next generation on public transport use from an early age. This will instill good habits into our children and rather than rely on a lift from mum and dad to get to school, they will be confident in making the same journey by walking 10 minutes from home to the bus stop, catch the bus to the train station, then transfer onto the train which will drop them off 5 minutes from their school. As more and more people get used to a ‘changing trains’ culture over time, we will be better equipped to move towards a European-style Takt network as far fewer destinations will demand trains to everywhere (Manchester Airport and Castlefield I’m looking at you). Of course, direct journey pairs such as intercity flows or airport to city connections will still be desirable due to the nature of these markets.

People have no confidence a connexion will be held. Imagine being stuck on a station for over an hour with kids because of a missed connection. Thats why through trans are sought after.

 

[Failed Unit]

My biggest bugbear is that connections are not held. I have watched a train pull away on a cross platform interchange as the one I was on was stopping. Next connection, the next day. Yes they gave me a taxi home. But you simply can’t rely on connecting services and they are rarely held even for 5 minutes on infrequent branch lines.

Before LNER introduced the direct service people from Lincoln preferred to drive to Newark rather than use the connection for exactly this reason.

 

[Neptune]

My biggest bugbear is that connections are not held. I have watched a train pull away on a cross platform interchange as the one I was on was stopping. Next connection, the next day. Yes they gave me a taxi home. But you simply can’t rely on connecting services and they are rarely held even for 5 minutes on infrequent branch lines.

Before LNER introduced the direct service people from Lincoln preferred to drive to Newark rather than use the connection for exactly this reason.

And yet another poster recently berrated Northern for holding a connection at Chester for a late running North Wales Coast service which wasn’t even the last train of the day.

This goes to show that whatever the railways do they simply can’t win.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quality, planned connections. Stations designed to ease them. Full Takt - clockface with designed connections - so it works every time, all day. Hold connections, or if they can't be held then inform passengers proactively what is going to be done instead. Quality station environments with good waiting facilities, retail etc (so not Crewe! ) in those cases where connections are unavoidably a bit long. When using Advances, make it so that if a connection is missed an Advance becomes an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single, so people can recover their journey as they see fit, and help them in doing so - indeed, extend the online booking sites so they make suggestions.

With the amount of online booking these days there is really good quality data of what connections people are intending to make - use it to make those decisions.

 

[irish_rail]

First thing I'd do would be something about Birmingham New st. Its so confusing and frustrating trying to change trains there. Get rid of the countless ticket barriers and glass walls that prevent easy access to platform changes.

 

[A0]

My biggest bugbear is that connections are not held. I have watched a train pull away on a cross platform interchange as the one I was on was stopping. Next connection, the next day. Yes they gave me a taxi home. But you simply can’t rely on connecting services and they are rarely held even for 5 minutes on infrequent branch lines.

Before LNER introduced the direct service people from Lincoln preferred to drive to Newark rather than use the connection for exactly this reason.

The problem is that holding a train for a connection, then has ramifications further around the network and all these things start to add up.

Let's say for the sake of argument your "connection" has to go on to navigate Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly as part of its further route - so if it arrives more than 5 late at Leeds, it's lost its slot, possibly its platform. It then needs to pick up / set down there - and people at Leeds are going to be p****d off that their train is at least 5 minutes late arriving. Then its got to find a new slot for the next leg of its journey - now usually if it had left on time it may have been fast to Manchester with a stopper pathed behind it - but as it was late arriving at Leeds, the stopper, which was on time, was allowed to leave, which means your "connection" is now going to be pathed behind it and will, inevitably, catch it up and be stuck behind it until a passing opportunity arises. All of which then delays it further. And what about those passengers on your connecting train who had further connections at Leeds or Manchester ? By holding the train they may miss their connections.

So yes, you as a single passenger were disrupted by the connection not being held, but potentially hundreds would have been affected if it had been held.

 

[Bletchleyite]

First thing I'd do would be something about Birmingham New st. Its so confusing and frustrating trying to change trains there. Get rid of the countless ticket barriers and glass walls that prevent easy access to platform changes.

That's unavoidable, but the signage could be better. Sign the A end as exit only, and the B end as connections, with lots of big arrows.

 

[A0]

Quality, planned connections. Stations designed to ease them. Full Takt - clockface with designed connections - so it works every time, all day. Hold connections, or if they can't be held then inform passengers proactively what is going to be done instead. Quality station environments with good waiting facilities, retail etc (so not Crewe! ) in those cases where connections are unavoidably a bit long. When using Advances, make it so that if a connection is missed an Advance becomes an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single, so people can recover their journey as they see fit, and help them in doing so - indeed, extend the online booking sites so they make suggestions.

With the amount of online booking these days there is really good quality data of what connections people are intending to make - use it to make those decisions.

Naturally none of that happens now..... (clue, quite alot of it does).

But are you prepared to put your hand in your pocket to bring it up to the standards you demand ?

 

[Magdalia]

The impact of missing a connection is the main deterrent. If that is high, in added journey time and/or increased anxiety and stress, then potential travellers will find other options. I never make a journey involving a connection unless I know what I will do if it is missed. If there's no satisfactory plan B, then I won't make the journey.

 

[mike57]

To add to what others have said, for me its about missing connections, particularly where a change of train operator is involved. If the route has a 30 min or better service then its not a problem, but if you are venturing out on to a branch line with may be 1 tph or even bigger gaps then the plan B if you miss it is a long wait or maybe having to find staff to arrange some other transport.

Given the fact that all running data is now in a database it surely wouldn't be impossible to identfy where connections are 'critical' i.e. missing them is going make for disproportionate impact on the journey. Each connection in this category could then have a set of measures applied (and published) to help the travller. Things like holding connections for upto x mins where x is determined by a location by location basis. Staff on hand to assist with getting passengers to their connection if an incoming train is running late. But really this needs an end to the current TOC silo operations and a return to BR style ops.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think you need BR style ops to encourage connections to be held, you just need to change how TOCs are incentivised. Awaiting a connection has to be an exempt reason from delay payment, and TOCs need to be penalised for missed connections.

 

[zwk500]

Quality, planned connections. Stations designed to ease them. Full Takt - clockface with designed connections - so it works every time, all day. Hold connections, or if they can't be held then inform passengers proactively what is going to be done instead. Quality station environments with good waiting facilities, retail etc (so not Crewe! ) in those cases where connections are unavoidably a bit long. When using Advances, make it so that if a connection is missed an Advance becomes an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single, so people can recover their journey as they see fit, and help them in doing so - indeed, extend the online booking sites so they make suggestions.

With the amount of online booking these days there is really good quality data of what connections people are intending to make - use it to make those decisions.

I'd love this, but where are you going to get the money to rebuild all the stations. And where are you going to get the land required to build track layouts (or bypass lines) that maintain independent/parallel moves for passenger services but allow freight the routing flexibility it needs?

That's unavoidable, but the signage could be better. Sign the A end as exit only, and the B end as connections, with lots of big arrows.

The platforms aren't wide enough for the passenger circulation issues this would cause. What they needed is either to get all the A end escalators inside a giant ring of ticket barriers, and send passengers around the edge of the station, or to have found some way to incorporate a mezzanine floor between the ticket line/departure boards and the platforms, to allow interchanging passengers to circulate without obstructing passengers trying to enter/exit the station.

I get why they built what they did though - there are limits of practicality when keeping the station operational and the footprint was pretty much fixed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2022 ==

I don't think you need BR style ops to encourage connections to be held, you just need to change how TOCs are incentivised. Awaiting a connection has to be an exempt reason from delay payment, and TOCs need to be penalised for missed connections.

Agree, you could easily include a marker in the Timetable data to say a specific connection is advertised/nominated/priority etc and that puts reactionary delays to the connection into a different category of some form. Obviously not every connection would do this, but it'd be much better for E.g. MKC/Marston Vale or London/Seaford passengers to have confidence their connections will be held.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd love this, but where are you going to get the money to rebuild all the stations. And where are you going to get the land required to build track layouts (or bypass lines) that maintain independent/parallel moves for passenger services but allow freight the routing flexibility it needs?

If the infrastructure can't be afforded, then you set the timetable so it can be delivered on the existing infrastructure. My suggestion would be that the system should operate generally on a 2tph base, as Switzerland does, to enable this, with long trains where this would cause a frequency cut. (That doesn't mean to say that some routes wouldn't justify more, of course).

The platforms aren't wide enough for the passenger circulation issues this would cause. What they needed is either to get all the A end escalators inside a giant ring of ticket barriers, and send passengers around the edge of the station, or to have found some way to incorporate a mezzanine floor between the ticket line/departure boards and the platforms, to allow interchanging passengers to circulate without obstructing passengers trying to enter/exit the station.

They already tell people to use the B end via announcements so the platforms must be wide enough.

I get why they built what they did though - there are limits of practicality when keeping the station operational and the footprint was pretty much fixed.

Indeed. It was either split the A end or not have it. Remember it's not a new-build but a rejig of an existing station and multistorey car park!

Agree, you could easily include a marker in the Timetable data to say a specific connection is advertised/nominated/priority etc and that puts reactionary delays to the connection into a different category of some form. Obviously not every connection would do this, but it'd be much better for E.g. MKC/Marston Vale or London/Seaford passengers to have confidence their connections will be held.

Indeed you could do that.

 

[zwk500]

If the infrastructure can't be afforded, then you set the timetable so it can be delivered on the existing infrastructure. My suggestion would be that the system should operate generally on a 2tph base, as Switzerland does, to enable this, with long trains where this would cause a frequency cut. (That doesn't mean to say that some routes wouldn't justify more, of course).

What do you do on routes where the cycle time means trains could only run every 40 minutes? Switzerland would spend money on the infrastructure to get those 5 minutes each way back, would you just drop the frequency to 1tph and absorb the inefficient stock and crew?

They already tell people to use the B end via announcements so the platforms must be wide enough.

My experience (admittedly quite out of date now) is that people just head to the nearest escalator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you do on routes where the cycle time means trains could only run every 40 minutes? Switzerland would spend money on the infrastructure to get those 5 minutes each way back, would you just drop the frequency to 1tph and absorb the inefficient stock and crew?

Are there any such routes? Which ones?

St Albans runs every 45 minutes and I would reduce that to hourly timed to connect with Euston services (which is happening during the day anyway). This would give a very punctual service which is a virtue when connections are important. Long layovers aren't "inefficient", they ensure punctuality which is essential in a connectional system.

 

[zwk500]

St Albans runs every 45 minutes and I would reduce that to hourly timed to connect with Euston services (which is happening during the day anyway). This would give a very punctual service which is a virtue when connections are important.

If connections are valuable to that route, which from previous threads they are not (although it's a bit of an outlier as the town has an alternative route to London).

Long layovers aren't "inefficient", they ensure punctuality which is essential in a connectional system.

They are inefficient, the train isn't being used. If you have a takt-style system you want every connection to be on time, not just the departure from the origin point. Better to build in 5-10% allowance in runtime and stops than to just double the turnround time.

To get back to the OP's point, the solution (which I hope Bletchleyite and I largely agree on) is giving people confidence that their connections will be made. The worry about being stuck on a station platform for half an hour or more if things are running late is a big reason why people prefer direct services.

 

[The Planner]

What connections are you going to consider, especially at somewhere like New St? For example XC only really prioritise the Bomo Manchester connecting into the SW to NE service in terms of timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What connections are you going to consider, especially at somewhere like New St? For example XC only really prioritise the Bomo Manchester connecting into the SW to NE service in terms of timetable.

As I mentioned, the "big data" exists to show what journeys people are booking - use that as a start - analyse it and find out!

It should also be possible to analyse it and see which booked connections often missed. Also the journeys that were searched for and not purchased - put in a popup when navigating away asking why they didn't purchase, for example. Often "too expensive" will be it, but "bad connections" may tell you a lot.

There are however some very obvious ones, such as from Avanti Scotland services to Barrows at Lancaster or Preston and to Windermeres at Oxenholme. The latter in particular need to pretty much always wait, and if they aren't going to the taxis might as well be ordered proactively.

 

[deltic]

Its a bit of a myth that BR maintained connections, there were guidelines on which trains could be held and for how long which was generally more flexible than now but there were also plenty of trains which were not to be held and plenty of missed connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2022 ==

There are however some very obvious ones, such as from Avanti Scotland services to Barrows at Lancaster or Preston and to Windermeres at Oxenholme. The latter in particular need to pretty much always wait, and if they aren't going to the taxis might as well be ordered proactively.

I certainly travelled in BR days when the Oxenholme-Windermere connection was not held and we had an hour wait.

 

[mrcheek]

First thing I'd do would be something about Birmingham New st. Its so confusing and frustrating trying to change trains there. Get rid of the countless ticket barriers and glass walls that prevent easy access to platform changes.

this is yet another of those "damned if you do...." scenarios.

Birmingham was a horrible station to change out, so dirty and dark and grimy. So they spent a fortune rectifying that. Its a much nicer station now, but its still the worst in the country to change at, because they made it so damn confusing

 

[zwk500]

Its a bit of a myth that BR maintained connections, there were guidelines on which trains could be held and for how long which was generally more flexible than now but there were also plenty of trains which were not to be held and plenty of missed connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2022 ==


I certainly travelled in BR days when the Oxenholme-Windermere connection was not held and we had an hour wait.

And there are times on today's network when connections are held. The GW Thames valley branches have done so on ocassion. It's always been a balance between causing more delay now but getting the service back sooner or mitigating delays now but taking longer to get back on time.

 

[HSTEd]

Holding connections just collapses the entire national timetable because of one delay.

I'm afraid we just have to run all routes at high enough intensity that a missed connection is not a serious problem.

 

[miklcct]

Run every main line at a turn up and go frequency that people don't need to wait for long for branch line connections.

For example, every 15 minutes between Euston and Milton Keynes calling at all stations.

On two-track railways, if there is capacity concern, unify the calling pattern such that all trains call at all stations to allow a turn-up-and-go frequency along the two-track mainline.

For the Windermere example, trains from Lancaster are frequent anyway (before the Avanti mess) that there is no need to hold connections, as one can just pick an appropriate departure from Lancaster to connect to the Windermere train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Holding connections just collapses the entire national timetable because of one delay.

I'm afraid we just have to run all routes at high enough intensity that a missed connection is not a serious problem.

The Far North? The Conwy Valley? Euston to Glasgow?

Er, no. Not everything is Merseyrail or a London commuter run.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Not being able to get a decent seat on the connecting train is always one of my disincentives. Having got nice and comfy* in my preferred seat with a view I don't really want to give that up. Even with a reservation there are sufficient issues around them not being displayed or ignored, or being unable to get to the relevant part of the train e.g. at Manchester Piccadilly platform 14 heading north. A connection for a short part of the overall journey I have no problem with e.g. Oxenholme to Windermere but for a long distance trip I want to sit and stay.

What would make a connection more attractive - enough time to make the connection even if the first train is a few minutes late but not so long as to be sat around. As an example the Derby to Crewe train arrives with less than 10 minutes (the official connection time at Crewe) into the northbound Avanti service to the Lakes / Scotland. If you are on a flexible ticket you will probably make that unofficial connection, if on an Advance (or wishing to have reserved seats) you are guaranteed 1 hour and 9 minutes sat at Crewe. I assume those trains still run at those times, I haven't looked since 2020.

* obviously debatable, and has been, many times.

 

[HSTEd]

The Far North? The Conwy Valley?

It is questionable that those routes even have any future as railways in the long run, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Euston to Glasgow?

We do it for London to Manchester, why not London to Glasgow too?

The trend on long distance services is towards clockface high intensity timetables.
I see no reason not to proceed to the logical conclusion of this strategy which has been demonstrated time and again to lead to dramatic increases in traffic.

 

[miklcct]

Er, no. Not everything is Merseyrail or a London commuter run.

Merseyrail and Elizabeth line are the most punctual operators in the country.

Therefore we should all learn from their method of operating.

 

[Failed Unit]

The problem is that holding a train for a connection, then has ramifications further around the network and all these things start to add up.

Let's say for the sake of argument your "connection" has to go on to navigate Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly as part of its further route - so if it arrives more than 5 late at Leeds, it's lost its slot, possibly its platform. It then needs to pick up / set down there - and people at Leeds are going to be p****d off that their train is at least 5 minutes late arriving. Then its got to find a new slot for the next leg of its journey - now usually if it had left on time it may have been fast to Manchester with a stopper pathed behind it - but as it was late arriving at Leeds, the stopper, which was on time, was allowed to leave, which means your "connection" is now going to be pathed behind it and will, inevitably, catch it up and be stuck behind it until a passing opportunity arises. All of which then delays it further. And what about those passengers on your connecting train who had further connections at Leeds or Manchester ? By holding the train they may miss their connections.

So yes, you as a single passenger were disrupted by the connection not being held, but potentially hundreds would have been affected if it had been held.

To give some context on this case, it is a branch line. Namely Newark North Gate - Cleethorpes. The timetable had at the time significant amounts of padding that when the train did leave 10 minutes late (due to East Midlands Trains issues) it was always back on time by Barnetby.

Totally understand your point,

Likewise you could state examples where the turn around on the branch line is so short that if you leave 5 minutes late the return journey is going to be late, or if it was running on a single line the delays would soon cascade as trains need to wait to enter the single line the other way.

Totally understand the railways are in a no win situation. But trains between Newark Northgate and Lincoln back then were purely in existence for connections to the ECML. Running the train empty and having to run a coach for the passengers for the sake of a 5 minutes delay is sadly how the privatized railway works. Without the mainline connections this route might as well be closed as leisure travel is done in the main from Newark Castle.

Really the railways need to understand the purpose of the rural railways, if they can't be relied on to connect to mainlines they are losing a lot of potential customers. I used to travel for free on this route, because of delay repay claims. Central trains did resolve this problem for a while, they made the connection 6 minutes (rather then the 7 minimum connection time - but you expect that of CT)

 

[MattRat]

People being able to actually plan journeys rather than be babysat by someone else would be a start. Would fix a lot of others problems in the world too. Giving yourself leeway for changing trains, so you don't have to rush, would make the change so much easier than panicking on the day.

For example, and this is a journey my family did, Liverpool to Weymouth, via London. We picked a train time from Waterloo to Weymouth, that would allow us to make the journey from Euston to Waterloo in a taxi, with time to spare.

Of course, other things went wrong when we actually got on the train to Weymouth, but we made the connection easily.