Passengers boarding train prior to display on screens

[12LDA28C]

Let them go to Ruislip by accident. They won't repeat the mistake again!

Ha! Is Ruislip really that bad?

 

[Starmill]

I'm sure that policy is in place for a reason, whether you think it's 'dumb' or not is of no consequence.

Why would you be sure of that though? Most railway policies are slow-moving historical processes which haven't been reviewed for many years. Yes most will continue to be valid but a huge amount of nonsense doesn't get changed because it's so much easier to just keep using the same outdated means of working.

 

[12LDA28C]

Why would you be sure of that though? Most railway policies are slow-moving historical processes which haven't been reviewed for many years. Yes most will continue to be valid but a huge amount of nonsense doesn't get changed because it's so much easier to just keep using the same outdated means of working.

On the contrary, I would say that not coupling/uncoupling with passengers on board is a more recent practice which would not have been an issue in say BR days. Which leads me to assume that policy has been adopted for a particular reason, possibly as a result of an incident and an actual or at the very least perceived risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the contrary, I would say that not coupling/uncoupling with passengers on board is a more recent practice which would not have been an issue in say BR days. Which leads me to assume that policy has been adopted for a particular reason, possibly as a result of an incident and an actual or at the very least perceived risk.

I was once told that at Euston it was due to signal overlaps. Don't know about Marylebone.

It's permitted in loads of places.

It may of course also be based on trade offs of risk - Platform Train Interface risk if you tip out vs risk of falling over. Whereas at a terminus there is nobody to tip out.

 

[Starmill]

I was once told that at Euston it was due to signal overlaps. Don't know about Marylebone.

It's permitted in loads of places.

It may of course also be based on trade offs of risk - Platform Train Interface risk if you tip out vs risk of falling over. Whereas at a terminus there is nobody to tip out.

There's very little chance it's actually based on some real-world risk factors. For example Southern used to attach and detach 455s at Purley all day for many years. SWR aren't allowed to with passengers onboard. That wasn't based on any actual technical differences with the coupling process, it was just that Southern needed to do it so they did, and SWR don't so they restricted it.

 

[Western Sunset]

The London Bridge - Caterham & Tattenham Corner services divide/attach at Purley every half-hour, though the units are now 377s. Passengers still remain onboard; the doors are closed for a few seconds whilst the actual attachment/detachment takes place.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have never, ever seen a train leave Euston without having boarded. I don't recall it at MYB either.

Clearly you weren't travelling in the days of B.R. Inter City West Coast, or its predecessor at the New Euston.

Solari flutters around to show platform of departure.
Queue forms back from folding doors to platform, which are firmly shut. Snakes back up ramp or across concourse.
Anxious looks as booked departure time looms with no sign of movement.
6 or 7 minutes before departure time, folding doors moved by staff member on platform side. Only opened slightly, to restrict passage to one passenger at a time. Any attempt to open further strongly resisted by platform staff.
Shortly (can't remember exact time, but I'm sure it was laid down in the rules) before departure time folding doors slammed shut in the face of passengers who had been patiently queuing - for half an hour, in some certain cases. But at least I was being paid to hang around for the next service

The halcyon days of Mr Green's ICWC for you...

But off topic in the sense that this all happened after the platform had been shown on the departure Solari.

 

[TUC]

On the contrary, I would say that not coupling/uncoupling with passengers on board is a more recent practice which would not have been an issue in say BR days. Which leads me to assume that policy has been adopted for a particular reason, possibly as a result of an incident and an actual or at the very least perceived risk.

I think the problem is that people will accept such practices if it is linked to logical reasons such as a particular type of train. However, too often such practices seem to vary between TOCs, or even different parts of the same TOc, and that cannot be justified.

 

[12LDA28C]

The London Bridge - Caterham & Tattenham Corner services divide/attach at Purley every half-hour, though the units are now 377s. Passengers still remain onboard; the doors are closed for a few seconds whilst the actual attachment/detachment takes place.

Again, mentioning stations all around the network where this takes place is irrelevant, different TOCs have different procedures and a process in place at one operator has no relevance to or bearing on whether that same process is followed at another.

 

[Ianigsy]

A few years ago, there used to be a 1629 Leeds-Harrogate-York which used to attach a 153 on arrival in the old Platform 1 at Leeds. The procedure was usually something like this:

-First passengers to arrive board the open 153
-150/155/158 arrives, offloads passengers and more new passengers board
-Doors on both units are closed
-Units coupled
-Doors are reopened until departure time

In fairness, while it might have been desirable not to have any passengers boarding until the units were coupled, you would need enough staff to control six doors as well as monitoring the coupling and having the 153 open prevented congestion building up on the platform.

 

[TUC]

A few years ago, there used to be a 1629 Leeds-Harrogate-York which used to attach a 153 on arrival in the old Platform 1 at Leeds. The procedure was usually something like this:

-First passengers to arrive board the open 153
-150/155/158 arrives, offloads passengers and more new passengers board
-Doors on both units are closed
-Units coupled
-Doors are reopened until departure time

In fairness, while it might have been desirable not to have any passengers boarding until the units were coupled, you would need enough staff to control six doors as well as monitoring the coupling and having the 153 open prevented congestion building up on the platform.

The problem comes if, say, you have a disabled passenger who can board and disembark for themselves with difficulty, but what they would not expect is the additional challenge of getting off then on again.

 

[12LDA28C]

There's very little chance it's actually based on some real-world risk factors. For example Southern used to attach and detach 455s at Purley all day for many years. SWR aren't allowed to with passengers onboard. That wasn't based on any actual technical differences with the coupling process, it was just that Southern needed to do it so they did, and SWR don't so they restricted it.

This is most likely the crux of the matter. Chiltern have no services that are booked to couple or uncouple with passengers on board, hence there is no written procedure for doing so. It is only allowed in a few very specific circumstances I believe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

I think the problem is that people will accept such practices if it is linked to logical reasons such as a particular type of train. However, too often such practices seem to vary between TOCs, or even different parts of the same TOc, and that cannot be justified.

Why can't it be justified for one TOC to have a different way of doing things from another TOC? They are separate companies with their own varying safety cases, procedures and processes. This is not BR any more.

 

[TUC]

Again, mentioning stations all around the network where this takes place is irrelevant, different TOCs have different procedures and a process in place at one operator has no relevance to or bearing on whether that same process is followed at another.

Surely it is very relevant. If it is the same type of train with similar staffing, the public are entirely justified in challenging different practices between TOCs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

This is most likely the crux of the matter. Chiltern have no services that are booked to couple or uncouple with passengers on board, hence there is no written procedure for doing so. It is only allowed in a few very specific circumstances I believe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==



Why can't it be justified for one TOC to have a different way of doing things from another TOC? They are separate companies with their own varying safety cases, procedures and processes. This is not BR any more.

Because it is hard to see how the risks can be different depending upon what organisation happens to operate the train.

 

[Watershed]

Again, mentioning stations all around the network where this takes place is irrelevant, different TOCs have different procedures and a process in place at one operator has no relevance to or bearing on whether that same process is followed at another.

It's highly relevant because it demonstrates that it's an entirely arbitrary policy and procedure.

 

[12LDA28C]

Surely it is very relevant. If it is the same type of train with similar staffing, the public are entirely justified in challenging different practices between TOCs.

Why? I don't go round complaining that Tesco's have different policies to Morrisons, or that when I fly with a certain airline, they do things differently from another carrier?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

It's highly relevant because it demonstrates that it's an entirely arbitrary policy and procedure.

Are you privy to all the various procedures in place at each TOC in the UK and why those procedures have been implemented? If not, I would say it's not for you to judge why things are done in a particular way and to proclaim what is arbitrary and what isn't.

 

[TUC]

Why? I don't go round complaining that Tesco's have different policies to Morrisons, or that when I fly with a certain airline, they do things differently from another carrier?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==



Are you privy to all the various procedures in place at each TOC in the UK and why those procedures have been implemented? If not, I would say it's not for you to judge why things are done in a particular way and to proclaim what is arbitrary and what isn't.

Sorry, but that approach is a smokescreen used in multiple public services to evade illogical practices being subject to public scrutiny.

 

[Watershed]

Why? I don't go round complaining that Tesco's have different policies to Morrisons or that when I fly with a certain airline, they do things differently from another carrier?

I certainly would, and would take my business elsewhere if the policies unjustifiably inconvenienced me. Passengers don't have the same choice in the case of TOCs; they operate an effective monopoly on travel between the areas they serve and central London.

Are you privy to all the various procedures in place at each TOC in the UK and why those procedures have been implemented? If not, I would say it's not for you to judge why things are done in a particular way.

I'm not - are you? If not, I would say it's not for you to judge that everyone else is wrong and Chiltern are right!

As you seem so incredibly confident that Chiltern's policy is justified, you must be privy to it. I'm sure you'll therefore be happy to explain what unique risk they face, that justifies their divergence from the industry norm.

 

[TUC]

Why? I don't go round complaining that Tesco's have different policies to Morrisons, or that when I fly with a certain airline, they do things differently from another carrier?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

The difference is that if I think Morrisons practices are illogical or stuck in the past I can use Tesco instead, and hopefully enough people would feel the same to cause Tesco to change practice as a matter of commercial sense. On many rail lines it is not just that there is not an alternative TOC, it also does not feel there is the will to say 'OK, we agree this is illogical. Let's change it'.

 

[Taunton]

I've had it happen where I've been the only person on an evening peak departure from Marylebone, as they had 3 consecutive departures (eg xx18, xx24, xx27) due to depart from the same platform within 10 mins of each other.

We have already been told Marylebone has 6 platforms, so to have three consecutive departures from only one of the 6 platforms comes over as a complete operating stupidity.

 

[yorkie]

I've had it happen where I've been the only person on an evening peak departure from Marylebone, as they had 3 consecutive departures (eg xx18, xx24, xx27) due to depart from the same platform within 10 mins of each other. And they would only display the platform for each service once the preceding service had left. Cue the 2nd train Being late so the the 3rd train West Ruislip service only flashed up for 5 seconds before being removed from the boards, no announcements. I only knew what platform it was via RTT. That struck me as being pretty farcical so I can well imagine there's a number of issues with boarding trains at Marylebone

Providing the trains run to time, and the statistics look good, that appears to be the most important thing with train companies such as Chiltern these days.

The attitude of companies like Chiltern isn't exactly customer-focussed and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Ha! Is Ruislip really that bad?

It's not bad, just there isn't much there as it is a quiet residential area and not well served by Chiltern (most people travelling between there and central London would take LU the whole way)

The difference is that if I think Morrisons practices are illogical or stuck in the past I can use Tesco instead, and hopefully enough people would feel the same to cause Tesco to change practice as a matter of commercial sense. On many rail lines it is not just that there is not an alternative TOC, it also does not feel there is the will to say 'OK, we agree this is illogical. Let's change it'.

Supermarket analogies are never quote right as the industries are so differently structured.

But yes; long gone are the days where Chiltern would try to entice InterCity West Coast franchise passengers to Birmingham onto their trains.

It's now very much seemingly an attitude of 'people who have no viable choice but to use us, will continue to do so', where the customer is taken for granted. I think that also suits the DfT's narrative.

 

[Starmill]

It's highly relevant because it demonstrates that it's an entirely arbitrary policy and procedure.

Indeed. I would say that the following point strongly supports the hypothesis that it's only an exercise in paperwork - i.e. it's arbitrary, as you say:

This is most likely the crux of the matter. Chiltern have no services that are booked to couple or uncouple with passengers on board, hence there is no written procedure for doing so. It is only allowed in a few very specific circumstances I believe.

 

[Hadders]

Why? I don't go round complaining that Tesco's have different policies to Morrisons, or that when I fly with a certain airline, they do things differently from another carrier?

Comparisons with supermarkets aren't really relevent. We don't have 'National Supermarkets', or a 'Supermarket Delivery Group'. I can't make a purchase on Tesco's website but collect the goods from Morrisons.

It does seem Chiltern is out of step with practically every other train operator here. There might be a good reason for it (although it hasn't really surfaced so far in this thread) but it shouldn't be impossible for CHiltern to come fall into line with everyone else, although I doubt there's a will to do so.

 

[Starmill]

Why? I don't go round complaining that Tesco's have different policies to Morrisons, or that when I fly with a certain airline, they do things differently from another carrier?

Those aren't services which are heavily-subsidised by public funds. Nor do they, for the most part, carry any lawful obligations to serve the public first and foremost. Chiltern's passenger train services are state-subsidised and do come with a public service obligation.

It stands to reason that if there's an appearance of inefficient practice, the general public will question it. If there's a good reason then there's a good reason, and as @ainsworth74 has pointed out a few times that could be better-communicated.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm not - are you? If not, I would say it's not for you to judge that everyone else is wrong and Chiltern are right!

As you seem so incredibly confident that Chiltern's policy is justified, you must be privy to it. I'm sure you'll therefore be happy to explain what unique risk they face, that justifies their divergence from the industry norm.

I don't believe I've stated anywhere that 'everyone else is wrong', or suggested that is what I believe.

Let's hypothesise for a moment that at some point in the past, an unfortunate passenger was somehow injured whilst two trains were attached with passengers on board, with the result that the process was changed to prevent a recurrence of said incident. Procedures often come about as a result of an incident which to the casual observer might not appear immediately obvious.

 

[Hadders]

Let's hypothesise for a moment that at some point in the past, an unfortunate passenger was somehow injured whilst two trains were attached with passengers on board, with the result that the process was changed to prevent a recurrence of said incident. Procedures often come about as a result of an incident which to the casual observer might not appear immediately obvious.

If the incident was that bad I'd expect the procedure to apply everywhere, not just to Chiltern.

 

[12LDA28C]

Comparisons with supermarkets aren't really relevent. We don't have 'National Supermarkets', or a 'Supermarket Delivery Group'. I can't make a purchase on Tesco's website but collect the goods from Morrisons.

It does seem Chiltern is out of step with practically every other train operator here. There might be a good reason for it (although it hasn't really surfaced so far in this thread) but it shouldn't be impossible for CHiltern to come fall into line with everyone else, although I doubt there's a will to do so.

It was stated upthread that SWR do not couple trains with passengers on board.

You seem to be advocating a standard method of operation across all operators. So shall we bring back guards on every train, for example, or go DOO nationwide?

 

[Starmill]

It was stated upthread that SWR do not couple trains with passengers on board.

They do, every day. It's only 455s where there was once a restriction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

You seem to be advocating a standard method of operation across all operators. So shall we bring back guards on every train, for example, or go DOO nationwide?

It sounds to me like what's being advocated for is an approved set of methods which fit the real-world operating conditions in different areas and with different rolling stock. Not just the same thing everywhere, which would be once again completely arbitrary.

 

[Hadders]

You seem to be advocating a standard method of operation across all operators. So shall we bring back guards on every train, for example, or go DOO nationwide?

All other things being equal there should be a standard way of operating, but we're in danger of taking things off-topic.

 

[Taunton]

Let's hypothesise for a moment that at some point in the past, an unfortunate passenger was somehow injured whilst two trains were attached with passengers on board,

Locomotives were changed, and backed onto trains from a cab with a very poor rearward view, with everyone on board, and even going in and out of open doors meantime, for the first 150 years of railways. If there was any issue with the attaching process one would have thought it would have come out then.

 

[CyrusWuff]

This is most likely the crux of the matter. Chiltern have no services that are booked to couple or uncouple with passengers on board, hence there is no written procedure for doing so. It is only allowed in a few very specific circumstances I believe.

I'm curious as to whether GWR have a similar restriction when it comes to attaching and detaching their 165s and 166s with passengers on board. I'm also not entirely sure that the coupling and splitting of EMUs mentioned elsewhere in the thread is comparable, given the different power source.

We have already been told Marylebone has 6 platforms, so to have three consecutive departures from only one of the 6 platforms comes over as a complete operating stupidity.

Still happens on a daily basis, with the 0604 to Birmingham, 0609 to Oxford, and 0620 to Gerrards Cross (previously 0605 to Birmingham, 0609 to Oxford, and 0616 to Stratford-upon-Avon) as the stock that forms all three is a single Empty Stock move from Wembley.

The triple stack in the evening peak (1711, 1724 and 1730 departures from Platform 6 if it's the one I'm thinking of) is no more, however.