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

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Bletchley will be an issue when 7/8 open. Really that's an example of where it needs to be differential - 5 is fine for the main station but you'd probably want 7 or 8 minutes for 7/8 (!).

MKC similarly in a way. Semifast Euston (P1) to local Euston is same island and could easily be one minute and rarely miss. P4/5 to P1 can be very tight at 5 minutes if the stairs are very busy. I don't think things were remotely as busy in the 1990s when this was probably last looked at.

 

[Horizon22]

I would agree that 5 minutes can sometimes feel like a bit of a push, and I say this as a relatively young, able-bodied male!

Sometimes you have to be in the "right" part of your train as if you are on the "wrong" part of a 12-car train for example, it might take you 2-3 minutes to simply walk down the platform to reach the stairs/lift to change. On the flip side however, 10 minutes also seems a bit long. Something like 7-8 would be a happy medium, but there is often an obsession for round numbers.

 

[SargeNpton]

Bletchley will be an issue when 7/8 open. Really that's an example of where it needs to be differential - 5 is fine for the main station but you'd probably want 7 or 8 minutes for 7/8 (!).

MKC similarly in a way. Semifast Euston (P1) to local Euston is same island and could easily be one minute and rarely miss. P4/5 to P1 can be very tight at 5 minutes if the stairs are very busy. I don't think things were remotely as busy in the 1990s when this was probably last looked at.

Bletchley can be dealt with by creating a TOC-specific interchange time for the Chiltern-operated services, so that a change of train between an LNWR service and a CR one is longer than between two LNWR services on the low-level platforms. This is allowed for within the existing data standards used by the journey planners.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bletchley can be dealt with by creating a TOC-specific interchange time for the Chiltern-operated services, so that a change of train between an LNWR service and a CR one is longer than between two LNWR services on the low-level platforms. This is allowed for within the existing data standards used by the journey planners.

Thanks. If that is possible setting 7 or 8 minutes between Avanti and WMT (in both directions) would help at MKC without breaking WMT to WMT connections by increasing the general time from 5. The WMT Crewe does use P5 but I still think it would overall be of benefit to do this.

 

[dk1]

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.

On Sundays Thameslink arrived into platform 7 at xx:47 and the Norwich departure left at xx:50 from platform 1. Those familiar and reasonably fit would normally make it but those less able or unprepared wouldn’t stand a chance such was the volume of passengers alighting and crossing that bridge. I would normally pass many throwing their hands up (or even trying to flag me down) as I passed along platform 4 at 35mph. To be fair though, it wasn’t an official connection.

 

[SargeNpton]

Thanks. If that is possible setting 7 or 8 minutes between Avanti and WMT (in both directions) would help at MKC without breaking WMT to WMT connections by increasing the general time from 5. The WMT Crewe does use P5 but I still think it would overall be of benefit to do this.

The problem with all TOC-specific interchange times is getting each affected TOC, and Network Rail, to agree. It then gets added to the Timetable Planning Rules and - assuming somebody tells the department responsible for station data used in the feed - the data used by journey planners.

 

[The Planner]

The problem with all TOC-specific interchange times is getting each affected TOC, and Network Rail, to agree. It then gets added to the Timetable Planning Rules and - assuming somebody tells the department responsible for station data used in the feed - the data used by journey planners.

NR shouldn't really be bothered, connection times are a TOC thing.

 

[SargeNpton]

NR shouldn't really be bothered, connection times are a TOC thing.

The definitive minimum connection time for each station is in Network Rail's Timetable Planning Rules documents. All other systems and organisations should be taking those values.

 

[The Planner]

The definitive minimum connection time for each station is in Network Rail's Timetable Planning Rules documents. All other systems and organisations should be taking those values.

Yes, but they aren't set by NR.

 

[SargeNpton]

Yes, but they aren't set by NR.

Doesn't matter who sets them. What's important is having a single source of reference, and everyone knowing how and when it can be amended.

One of the big problems in the early days of privatisation was each company doing its own thing, and not letting everyone else know. It took years for different companies to get over their parochialism and cooperate for the greater good.

 

[blimmo]

Ah my favourite topic.

To those saying the MCTs need to be set so that everyone can make the connections: I completely disagree. MCTs stop advance connections being possible and thereby significantly increase journeys for those of us that can make the connections quicker. When travelling between places with 1tph service this can easily make the journey 1hr longer than it needs to be which is frankly unacceptable.

I agree with @Bletchleyite: set the MCTs by platform, then allow people to increase interchange time and default to a slightly increased time. All the allowances for people who need a bit longer to change can be done by the journey planners and don't need to be done in the MCT calculations that affect us all.

Hopefully then we can lose the ridiculous 15 mins allowed to get from the circle line platforms to the mainline at Liverpool Street...

 

[35B]

Ah my favourite topic.

To those saying the MCTs need to be set so that everyone can make the connections: I completely disagree. MCTs stop advance connections being possible and thereby significantly increase journeys for those of us that can make the connections quicker. When travelling between places with 1tph service this can easily make the journey 1hr longer than it needs to be which is frankly unacceptable.

I agree with @Bletchleyite: set the MCTs by platform, then allow people to increase interchange time and default to a slightly increased time. All the allowances for people who need a bit longer to change can be done by the journey planners and don't need to be done in the MCT calculations that affect us all.

Hopefully then we can lose the ridiculous 15 mins allowed to get from the circle line platforms to the mainline at Liverpool Street...

The connection times are averages, designed for the average person to be able to make a connection from an on time train safely. Those “average people” are precisely those who need and deserve protection, and are least likely to know to tune their connection times.

If there’s a case for what you propose, it is to allow you to reduce your connection time in return for waiving your rights to (at least) delay repay in the event of late running causing you a missed connection.

 

[blimmo]

If there’s a case for what you propose, it is to allow you to reduce your connection time in return for waiving your rights to (at least) delay repay in the event of late running causing you a missed connection.

I do not care about delay repay I just want to be able to make a journey I make regularly without an extra hour of sitting around at stations (on advances because flexibles are ridiculously expensive on this route especially for one-way journeys). This fundamentally depends on MCTs not being padded.

The connection times are averages, designed for the average person to be able to make a connection from an on time train safely. Those “average people” are precisely those who need and deserve protection, and are least likely to know to tune their connection times.

Hence the default being higher than the minimum. The minimum connection time should not be an average it should be a minimum.

 

[Failed Unit]

I do not care about delay repay I just want to be able to make a journey I make regularly without an extra hour of sitting around at stations (on advances because flexibles are ridiculously expensive on this route especially for one-way journeys). This fundamentally depends on MCTs not being padded.

Hence the default being higher than the minimum. The minimum connection time should not be an average it should be a minimum.

Some of the TOCs delibrately manipluate the timetable to ensure that they avoid the delay replay. At Newark NorthGate there were a lot of 6 minute connections, as if it was 7 minutes they would be hit with a 120 delay repay. This was because the ECML train was frequently late that people missed the connection. I have seen at times the local trian towards Lincoln shut the doors and leave empty with most of the passengers wanting it watching on the IC train. The delibrate changing of that connection to 6 minutes solved that problem. However I would still book it (if possible) as it does make a much fast journey, and I still have a 2 hour wait if I miss it for whatever cause. I would now split to ensure I could do it.

 

[35B]

I do not care about delay repay I just want to be able to make a journey I make regularly without an extra hour of sitting around at stations (on advances because flexibles are ridiculously expensive on this route especially for one-way journeys). This fundamentally depends on MCTs not being padded.

Hence the default being higher than the minimum. The minimum connection time should not be an average it should be a minimum.

No, it needs to be an average that reflects the average consumer. That average person should not have to know to add extra time to make a connection because the minimum used by journey planners is set for those in the know.

They also need to be kept under review, and properly considered - especially if there are particular services that don’t make. And that might well warrant reviewing the tube to main times given just how generous they are.

 

[blimmo]

No, it needs to be an average that reflects the average consumer. That average person should not have to know to add extra time to make a connection because the minimum used by journey planners is set for those in the know.

They would not have to change anything! The default can remain the average! I just want the OPTION to be able to connect my advances with a slightly hurried connection time.

Consider Kenilworth to Felixstowe tomorrow leaving 1145. I know I can make the 1330 LST-IPS on that itinerary unless the Avanti is fairly delayed (not unlikely unfortunately) since I have timed making EUS-LST with not great tube luck in 17 mins (doors open to platform). If I do that I arrive 1hr earlier. Fine if you want to remove my delay repay rights since the itinerary is a lot more risky than getting the 1400 but please let me travel on it. (Also I won't get 1hr delay repay anyway since the Felixstowe trains almost always run a couple of minutes early but that's a separate issue)

To restate it one more time: the default interchange time can remain roughly as it is today (although hopefully it can be tuned by platform so for example some MKC connections could be even higher than today if that's sensible). All I want is the ability to purchase advance tickets with a shorter connection time and the guarantee I will be able to travel on the later connection if earlier trains are delayed.

 

[35B]

They would not have to change anything! The default can remain the average! I just want the OPTION to be able to connect my advances with a slightly hurried connection time.

Consider Kenilworth to Felixstowe tomorrow leaving 1145. I know I can make the 1330 LST-IPS on that itinerary unless the Avanti is fairly delayed (not unlikely unfortunately) since I have timed making EUS-LST with not great tube luck in 17 mins (doors open to platform). If I do that I arrive 1hr earlier. Fine if you want to remove my delay repay rights since the itinerary is a lot more risky than getting the 1400 but please let me travel on it. (Also I won't get 1hr delay repay anyway since the Felixstowe trains almost always run a couple of minutes early but that's a separate issue)

To restate it one more time: the default interchange time can remain roughly as it is today (although hopefully it can be tuned by platform so for example some MKC connections could be even higher than today if that's sensible). All I want is the ability to purchase advance tickets with a shorter connection time and the guarantee I will be able to travel on the later connection if earlier trains are delayed.

And I don't have a problem with that - provided that it is based on the consumer making a conscious decision to go for an aggressive connection rather than take the default - and with a corresponding adjustment of terms (e.g. Delay Repay) if it goes wrong. My concern is about shifting things the other way round.

 

[The exile]

I do not care about delay repay I just want to be able to make a journey I make regularly without an extra hour of sitting around at stations (on advances because flexibles are ridiculously expensive on this route especially for one-way journeys). This fundamentally depends on MCTs not being padded.

Well, it really depends on there being an option for you to override journey planners’ connection times on an “on your own head be it” basis - which I think should be an option.

 

[Topological]

Well, it really depends on there being an option for you to override journey planners’ connection times on an “on your own head be it” basis - which I think should be an option.

I am worried now there is a "On your head be it", "Minimum for Delay Repay" and "Default for the average user".

Given that flexible tickets do not stop the "On your head be it" option, it is only advances with connections that are an issue. So then you are looking at two advances instead of one single advance. That is then "on your head be it" already when the first train misses the connection to the below minimum interchange train.

 

[edwin_m]

Have there been complaints about discrimination, when someone less mobile fails to make a connection that is longer than the minimum time and is therefore denied Delay Repay?

 

[The exile]

Given that flexible tickets do not stop the "On your head be it" option, it is only advances with connections that are an issue.

Only partially true, given the difficulty of getting even flexible tickets via some channels without an itinerary.

 

[Topological]

Only partially true, given the difficulty of getting even flexible tickets via some channels without an itinerary.

But the itinerary may say a later train (the one delay repay would apply to). The reality of the "on your head be it" is that the ticket would be valid. Essentially, the way you get onto a train which is "too early" is to "start short", which is permitted. I don't think a flexible ticket would be invalidated by not waiting for the minimum interchange time to expire.

I guess the grey area is if the "user specified" additional number of minutes for interchange is allowed to be negative. Then you would get an itinerary as well.

 

[The exile]

But the itinerary may say a later train (the one delay repay would apply to). The reality of the "on your head be it" is that the ticket would be valid. Essentially, the way you get onto a train which is "too early" is to "start short", which is permitted. I don't think a flexible ticket would be invalidated by not waiting for the minimum interchange time to expire.

I guess the grey area is if the "user specified" additional number of minutes for interchange is allowed to be negative. Then you would get an itinerary as well.

So the itinerary says “take train A for 10 minutes then wait at station Z for 39 minutes then take train B for 10 minutes”. How many people who aren’t “rail experts” are going to travel by train? Flexible tickets might not suffer from the DR problem but they are still affected because system “tells you” that a particular journey doesn’t exist.

 

[Krokodil]

Take for example the typical connection between the North Wales Coast and Chester and the north WCML to Glasgow at Warrington Bank Quay. It's a 5 minute minimum connection, and I'm sure theoretically the 7 minute connection northbound is fine given it's cross platform. In practice, it's too short and relies on the TFW train being on time, which often it isn't - not helped by some trains having a ridiculously optimistic short dwell time at Chester. Nobody will make their own judgement to plan to spend an extra hour on the platform at Warrington (surely one of the least appealing major intercity interchange stations with the poorest of facilities)

I've just had a look at Recent Train Times and that connection seems to be very reliable.

Thurs 26th: Only one train missed, and that one was a 30+ delay so not going to be solved by MCT padding
Weds 25th: All trains made their connections
Tues 24th: All trains made their connections
Mon 23rd: All trains made their connections
Sat 21st: One missed connection (21L)
Fri 20th: One missed connection (6L)

So in the last week, there has been the sum total of one missed connection that wouldn't have been advertised if the MCT was longer. That's all, just one.

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.

Newton-le-Willows is such an example. At some times the arrival time of the TfW service is four minutes from the departure of the Northern stopper which means that a connection is not advertised. Except that as it is guaranteed to be a same-platform change, the only way that it can be missed is if the TfW service loses its path entirely (something that the signaller will try to avoid where possible as it creates a knock on all the way to the Airport and back). Obviously changing for a Liverpool-bound train requires longer as one needs to go to platform 2.

It can't be beyond the wit of man to have platform-specific MCTs where the platform allocations of both trains are fixed by the infrastructure.

 

[Falcon1200]

To those saying the MCTs need to be set so that everyone can make the connections: I completely disagree.

If they were not so set there would inevitably be people who did not realise that extended connection times could be specified and would miss their next train!

 

[blimmo]

Making everyone who pays attention's journey worse so that people who didn't plan their journey properly don't have to wait a bit is in my opinion unacceptable.

But anyway it doesn't matter because *the defaults can stay inflated*. I just want to be allowed to get an itinerary with an advance that isn't inflated, I don't care if the default itineraries that people who didn't pay attention get given have extra time in case they are slow walkers.

 

[35B]

Making everyone who pays attention's journey worse so that people who didn't plan their journey properly don't have to wait a bit is in my opinion unacceptable.

But anyway it doesn't matter because *the defaults can stay inflated*. I just want to be allowed to get an itinerary with an advance that isn't inflated, I don't care if the default itineraries that people who didn't pay attention get given have extra time in case they are slow walkers.

It's not "people who didn't plan their journey properly" but the ordinary public who lack the knowledge and expertise to take those risks.

Hard cases make bad law; your example shows how changes could be made, but they need to be based on a standard distribution of travellers, not those right out at the extremes.

 

[sot]

Stafford was always a bad one, pair a 5 minute interchange with back of train and need to use a lift and it is tight.

Even worse when the inbound from Euston is late and the waiting crewe bound stoke train leaves bang on time.

 

[Krokodil]

It's not "people who didn't plan their journey properly" but the ordinary public who lack the knowledge and expertise to take those risks.

Hard cases make bad law; your example shows how changes could be made, but they need to be based on a standard distribution of travellers, not those right out at the extremes.

As far as I can see, the status quo generally works. As described above, it would be better if shorter MCTs could be provided for train pairs guaranteed to use the same platform rather than having a blanket time for everything serving the station - that's the only thing that I would say improves the present situation.

I have timed platform 4 to platform 1 at Chester with a bicycle (and therefore having to use the lifts, just like someone in a wheelchair). Comfortably achievable in five minutes, platforms 5/6 aren't much further. If passengers may struggle with wayfinding then improve the signage or provide more staff. If a passenger may need more help than Average Joe then the Passenger Assist system exists to help them - not only will someone be helping them off of the first train and showing them to their new platform but also the dispatcher should be aware that they are expecting someone.

With this in mind, I feel that Crewe's 10 minutes is entirely appropriate too, though I haven't timed it. For many connections between platform 9 and platform 5 five minutes is enough, 10 minutes should therefore be sufficient for any platform combinations which are farther apart and lift use required.

 

[yorksrob]

The status quo works - so long as the railway meets its obligations, particularly where stranding is possible.