Is a 5 minute minimum connection time too unrealistic even at smaller stations?

[jfollows]

There seems to be a big misrepresentation here.

Why does the minimum connection time need to be increased?

The minimum connection time is the time used to calculate connections that are possible. All I am arguing is that delay repay can be paid on the current minimum connections.

I agree; the Minimum Connection Time is a fiction and is over-analysed here, it’s only loosely connected to reality.

 

[Topological]

I often have a short 5ish-minute connection at Warrington Bank Quay, which thankfully normally involves either a cross-platform or a same-platform interchange. However, it doesn't take much of a delay on Avanti to miss it in the northbound direction, so I have done quite well out of delay repay. If it's a long time until the next service, I have often jumped in a local cab using the delay repay money to pay for my onward travel to Newton-le-Willows. Southbound, I normally aim for the train before the one I actually need to get on because of Castlefield/Calder Valley delays.

There are so many examples where extending the minimum connection time would stop perfectly doable connections from being offered as valid journeys.

I can only assume peoples answer is "retime the connection" but if it was that easy then the connections would not be what they are now.

I know that there are stations where a 1 or 2 minute connection can be made, but I would not argue to reduce 5 to 1 or 2. The simpler the system the better and 5 is a good default.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know that there are stations where a 1 or 2 minute connection can be made, but I would not argue to reduce 5 to 1 or 2. The simpler the system the better and 5 is a good default.

I don't think that makes sense any more. Almost all journeys are worked out using journey planners now and so they can be more specific to which connections can be made in 2 and which could do with 10.

 

[Topological]

I don't think that makes sense any more. Almost all journeys are worked out using journey planners now and so they can be more specific to which connections can be made in 2 and which could do with 10.

But what if... Trying to consider platforming data is an example of using statistical modelling for the sake of it. These are the sorts of applications of models are what give technology a bad name. Just use the longest gap between platforms and assume that the person walking is doing 3mph without a suitcase.

It just makes no sense to offer anything less than 5 when we accept 5. All that happens then is you get missed connections at even the slightest hint of delay.

It makes no sense to force people into longer connections than are currently offered. Present journey times increase, or stay the same at best.

Give people who want longer the option to specify longer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It just makes no sense to offer anything less than 5 when we accept 5. All that happens then is you get missed connections at even the slightest hint of delay.

There are some connections that cannot miss (or rather will only miss spectacularly, never by a few minutes) - primarily same-platform or where a fast train is connecting with a slow train on adjacent platforms. There are plenty of these that could in effect be 1 minute because operationally the correct train pretty much always ends up in front, and if it doesn't you will miss whether the time is 1 minute or 20 minutes.

Connections between fast and slow trains at Leighton Buzzard are a good example. Sending the slow out first will create a load of extra delay, so it doesn't generally happen.

It makes no sense to force people into longer connections than are currently offered. Present journey times increase, or stay the same at best.

A punctual longer journey is better than an unpunctual shorter journey. You don't want stressed passengers.

Give people who want longer the option to specify longer.

I'd rather give expert users the option to specify shorter. The railway needs to be set up to be friendly to use for those who do not use it often, and unless same-island or same-platform, 5 minute connections are too short not to be stressful for most - even a queue on the stairs can mess it up. Expert users will work it out regardless of what the policy is.

 

[Topological]

There are some connections that cannot miss (or rather will only miss spectacularly, never by a few minutes) - primarily same-platform or where a fast train is connecting with a slow train on adjacent platforms. There are plenty of these that could in effect be 1 minute because operationally the correct train pretty much always ends up in front, and if it doesn't you will miss whether the time is 1 minute or 20 minutes.

Connections between fast and slow trains at Leighton Buzzard are a good example. Sending the slow out first will create a load of extra delay, so it doesn't generally happen.



A punctual longer journey is better than an unpunctual shorter journey. You don't want stressed passengers.



I'd rather give expert users the option to specify shorter. The railway needs to be set up to be friendly to use for those who do not use it often. Expert users will work it out regardless of what the policy is.

All you are describing is having the default setting for connections higher - not changing the minimum. It would still be possible for an "expert user" to reduce the time. The minimum connection is the minimium hence the minimum that ANY user could select.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All you are describing is having the default setting for connections higher - not changing the minimum. It would still be possible for an "expert user" to reduce the time. The minimum connection is the minimium hence the minimum that ANY user could select.

I'm saying that's something I would compromise on (probably having the default as 150% of the actual minima would be about right for most occasional users, with a quick option to set it to 200% for those of limited mobility but not requiring assistance), but I do think with journey planners being king now we could be more sophisticated with the actual minima.

With regard to the Forum site/Trainsplit, by the way, it would be handy if you could set the added time for specific stations when in "expert mode" - sometimes you just know a given connection will miss and want to extend that one to the train half an hour later but not the others. Not an issue on walk up tickets, just travel at the other time, of course, but for Advances you can end up with something that's almost guaranteed to miss with potentially more limited onward options (due to the same-TOC rule) - that is all very well in terms of if getting a free or half price trip is your priority (via Delay Repay), but most of the time I just want to make the journey as booked, not half an hour or an hour later because of a missed connection.

 

[bahnause]

I want my journey times to be as short as possible, particularly for my daily commute.

The infrastructure costs of reducing travel times are enormous. It is therefore absurd to extend connection times artificially. If a missed connection due to regularly delayed trains is a problem, the solution is to ensure those trains run on time, rather than extending the connection times for all trains.

 

[Topological]

I'm saying that's something I would compromise on (probably having the default as 150% of the actual minima would be about right for most occasional users, with a quick option to set it to 200% for those of limited mobility but not requiring assistance), but I do think with journey planners being king now we could be more sophisticated with the actual minima.

With regard to the Forum site/Trainsplit, by the way, it would be handy if you could set the added time for specific stations when in "expert mode" - sometimes you just know a given connection will miss and want to extend that one to the train half an hour later but not the others. Not an issue on walk up tickets, just travel at the other time, of course, but for Advances you can end up with something that's almost guaranteed to miss with potentially more limited onward options (due to the same-TOC rule) - that is all very well in terms of if getting a free or half price trip is your priority (via Delay Repay), but most of the time I just want to make the journey as booked, not half an hour or an hour later because of a missed connection.

That is a very good point about splitting.

As a regular user of the railways, I will check what exactly the split is offering me and what the likely conditions would be when a connection is missed. However, the permutations of ticket acceptance, acceptance of responsibility for delays, and the informing of staff on the ground by control, create a lot of unknowns. You are right that the split ticket calculators would benefit from a setting to simplify things for less experienced users.

I always aim for the fastest trip, but do choose ticket combinations that work out cheapest. Only when the advance gets close in price to the flexible do I choose the flexible. I do appreciate that others are different.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

5 is easy enough almost everywhere for me.
Delays can be any duration at any time (although of course minor ones are more common).
I pretty much exclusively use flexible tickets so it doesn't matter to me but it's frustrating not getting delay repay because a valid itinerary demands 15 minutes for a 1 minute run

 

[Trainbike46]

I want my journey times to be as short as possible, particularly for my daily commute.

The infrastructure costs of reducing travel times are enormous. It is therefore absurd to extend connection times artificially. If a missed connection due to regularly delayed trains is a problem, the solution is to ensure those trains run on time, rather than extending the connection times for all trains.

Fully agreed here.

Many minimum connection times are unnecessarily long, making train appear uncompetitive on journey time when it isn't in reality. This needs to be fixed.

In many other countries minimum connection times depend on the arriving and departing platform, and can be as low as 3 minutes for cross-platform connections. There is no reason this can't be done in the UK, and it would make rail more competitive in journey times for relatively little investment.

Another example that should get resolved is the MCT from Eurostar to National rail. This is currently set at the same as the transfer in the "towards Europe" direction, which (rightly) includes time for passport and security checks that don't happen in the "from Europe" directly, artificially and unnecessarily extending journey times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I want my journey times to be as short as possible, particularly for my daily commute.

The infrastructure costs of reducing travel times are enormous. It is therefore absurd to extend connection times artificially. If a missed connection due to regularly delayed trains is a problem, the solution is to ensure those trains run on time, rather than extending the connection times for all trains.

But it's not always about whether the trains are on time. Five minutes is a lot at some stations to simply get up the stairs and over when busy, yet if it's same platform one minute can be entirely feasible.

 

[CMS1]

Ticket websites should default to the official min connection but allow you to set your own connection time whether shorter or longer. People who choose to do this will be familar with the stations and know what they need. A lot of the official times are far longer than most people need, meaning on some changes, nearly everyone makes an unofficial connection that if using advances you can't book as 1 ticket. There's no sense in this.

 

[xotGD]

Including fixed local connections on Advances is annoying. You get to the platform in plenty of time for the unofficial connection and have to sweet-talk the guard into letting you on, rather than just being able to board.

 

[The exile]

In many other countries minimum connection times depend on the arriving and departing platform, and can be as low as 3 minutes for cross-platform connections. There is no reason this can't be done in the UK, and it would make rail more competitive in journey times for relatively little investment.

That relies on having the “luxury” of a set platform for every service, which at the UK’s level of intensive use of stations isn’t going to happen at a lot of critical stations where lots of changes (of train) take place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That relies on having the “luxury” of a set platform for every service, which at the UK’s level of intensive use of stations isn’t going to happen at a lot of critical stations where lots of changes (of train) take place.

There are plenty of places where it is consistent, though.

 

[edwin_m]

That relies on having the “luxury” of a set platform for every service, which at the UK’s level of intensive use of stations isn’t going to happen at a lot of critical stations where lots of changes (of train) take place.

A re-platforming could be treated the same as any other delay - if it prevents passengers making the connection they would be eligible for Delay Repay.

 

[yorkie]

I was in Sheffield yesterday and planned to visit Manchester afterwards, totally forgetting the works at Piccadilly rather than catch a service to Stockport or wherever then a rail replacement bus to Piccadilly journey planner suggested I could catch the 22:27 Northern service to Wakefield Kirkgate arriving at 23:12 (Platform 1) then head across to Platform 2 for the 23:18 Transpenine service to Manchester Victoria (usually Piccadilly but they seem to have managed to move that to Victoria during the works)

That would have probably been fine until the 22:18 Sheffield to Leeds express service got delayed until 22:31 and took priority, so the 22:27 departed 7 minutes late and arrived in Wakefield Kirkgate just in time to see the Transpenine service pulling away!

In the end I just went home instead but it did amuse me thinking about it if I had really been stubborn I could have had a valid case for Northern providing me a taxi from Wakefield to Manchester! (not that I bought a ticket in the end for that journey as I knew it was unlikely to happen once we left 7 minutes late - I already had a Wakefield - Sheffield day return ticket)

5 minutes to make a connection seems quite tight even at Wakefield Kirkgate, you're basically relying on things running pretty much bang on schedule

(There is of course the valid point I could have caught the 22:18 express service and been there in good time even accounting for the delay but I was already sat on the 22:27 and didn't want to risk getting off that and then potentially not being on either train!)

It would be a huge shame and retrograde step to force an extended interchange time, and therefore extended journey times, for everyone.

You can already get your wish by using a booking site that allows an increased interchange time, such as ours

Within the "Advanced options", you can either do this by specifying "changing at", and specifying extra mins at a specific station of your choice, as circled in red below, or alternatively you can require the same additional time at all interchange stations by setting a value within "Extra change time (mins)", as circled in green below:

 

[NCT]

Longer minimum connections would probably mean we give up on the concept of Swiss-style interchanges altogether.

If the minimum connection time is raised to say 10 minutes, then for a 00 node you effectively force all arrivals to be no later than xx56 and all departures to no earlier than xx04. Anything longer than a xx50-xx10 interchange defeats the purpose of a Swiss node. That means you only have a 6-minute window for all arrivals and a 6-minute window for all departures. That means needing more tracks for parallel moves than you otherwise would. You also tighten node-to-node journey times - a 1-hour 'system journey time' has to be completed in 52 minutes - that would trigger speed upgrades otherwise not needed.

With 5-minute minimum interchanges, Chester, Shrewsbury and Hereford could be turned to Swiss nodes with relative ease. With 10-minute minimum interchanges, you'd trigger some expensive upgrades.

 

[VItraveller]

I think it is too short, effectively when the railway gives a time of five minutes that’s the railway saying that’s how long it should take you to reach your next connection, but if the only way you can do that is by running then the railway is encouraging people to run, which is not great in a busy train station.

 

[yorkie]

I think it is too short, ...

In that case I encourage you to specify additional interchange time when booking tickets / planning a journey.

 

[Failed Unit]

I do find 5 minutes too tight except where it's same or cross platform, yes. Given the railway's punctuality or lack thereof, 10 is more realistic in most cases.

It would be good if GBR got an IT system in place that could differentiate.

If you look at a station like Welwyn Garden City - It can take more then 5 minutes to clear the gateline if it is busy so if I was to change between a Cambridge - London and a Welwyn Garden City - Moorgate I would do that Southbound at least at Hatfield. However I am not sure where the booking engines would suggest. Going North they are both same platform so doesn't matter.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think it is too short, effectively when the railway gives a time of five minutes that’s the railway saying that’s how long it should take you to reach your next connection, but if the only way you can do that is by running then the railway is encouraging people to run, which is not great in a busy train station.

Thought we were talking about smaller statikns with five minute minimum connection times? Notwithstanding, which is arguably the busiest "smaller" station on the GB network with a 5 minute MCT, where that might still not be enough at certain times?

 

[spyinthesky]

I have always enjoyed the thrill of making unadvertised connections with minutes to spare but the best ones are minus ones you never should make when something is running late.

Except when you get on the wrong train!
Happened to me on my first All line ranger which I spent months of planning.
Changing at Fareham from GWR to Southern. It should have been same platform change but my service was 2 down.
Arriving at Fareham I saw the Southern service on the other Platform and in my haste made it with seconds to spare. Within seconds I realised what I had just done. Heading back the same way from where I started.
I did make my final destination my first day but it meant missing out the Sheerness branch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thought we were talking about smaller statikns with five minute minimum connection times? Notwithstanding, which is arguably the busiest "smaller" station on the GB network with a 5 minute MCT, where that might still not be enough at certain times?

Possibly Milton Keynes Central? I remain amazed that it isn't down as 7 or even 10. Delays on the stairs when busy are the main issue. 5 is tight unless it's same island.

 

[Failed Unit]

Possibly Milton Keynes Central? I remain amazed that it isn't down as 7 or even 10. Delays on the stairs when busy are the main issue. 5 is tight unless it's same island.

Some of them have not had a review for a while as well. Doncaster springs to mind. Platform 0 I suspect is a challenge in most cases.

 

[MikeWM]

Some of them have not had a review for a while as well. Doncaster springs to mind. Platform 0 I suspect is a challenge in most cases.

Cambridge hasn't changed since the island platform opened. You'd need to be fairly quick, and lucky with congestion on the (inadequate capacity) bridge, to make a connection in 5 minutes between the London end of 1/2/3 and a departure from 7/8, or vice versa.

This isn't just theoretical - eg. using NRE for Kings Cross to Whittlesford via Cambridge for tomorrow, NR offers the 1124 from KGX arriving Cambridge platform 1 at 1213, switching to the Liverpool Street train from platform 8 at 1218. Even if everything is on time, if you're near the back of the train arriving at Cambridge you're going to struggle to get the 1218.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think this has had a few debates for long time.

Edinburgh Waveley for example is 10 minutes - However I wouldn't be too keen to get from the rear of a train on platform 1 to say platform 12 in the 10 minutes when the station is busy. I find the time allowed by the planners from Newark Northgate - Newark Castle excessive - however I did have nervous wait once when the barriers were down but I did have enough time to cross the lines and get the train after they opened.

 

[The exile]

A re-platforming could be treated the same as any other delay - if it prevents passengers making the connection they would be eligible for Delay Repay.

But it’s not just a matter of “replatforming” - there’s got to be a degree of consistency by route in the first place. At many stations there will be, but the larger the station (and therefore the greater the number of connections) the less likely it is. And if we start getting too “precise” in the timing then the factor of where you are in your first train will start to become a significant factor. To take Bristol TM as an example, being in the front coach of 9 arriving from the north on platform 6 poses a much greater challenge to a short connection to platform 1 than if the same train stops on platform 5. If you’re in the rear coach then the situation is reversed.

 

[dk1]

Except when you get on the wrong train!
Happened to me on my first All line ranger which I spent months of planning.
Changing at Fareham from GWR to Southern. It should have been same platform change but my service was 2 down.
Arriving at Fareham I saw the Southern service on the other Platform and in my haste made it with seconds to spare. Within seconds I realised what I had just done. Heading back the same way from where I started.
I did make my final destination my first day but it meant missing out the Sheerness branch.

Haha that’s funny. The magical mystery tour.