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

[Sorcerer]

I recently had a seven-minute connection at Wigan North Western for a journey to Edinburgh from Liverpool. I think this is perfectly quick and reasonable when heading north because the platforms are right next to each other, and when heading south you just need to travel through an underpass. This is assuming things go smoothly.

But on the way back the train at Preston incurred a four-minute delay which meant I now had a three-minute connection to get off the train, run through the underpass and up the platform. Thankfully the train was held for a bit, most likely to accommodate connecting passengers. But it showed me just how quickly things could fall apart if even one train is delayed.

 

[Topological]

I recently had a seven-minute connection at Wigan North Western for a journey to Edinburgh from Liverpool. I think this is perfectly quick and reasonable when heading north because the platforms are right next to each other, and when heading south you just need to travel through an underpass. This is assuming things go smoothly.

But on the way back the train at Preston incurred a four-minute delay which meant I now had a three-minute connection to get off the train, run through the underpass and up the platform. Thankfully the train was held for a bit, most likely to accommodate connecting passengers. But it showed me just how quickly things could fall apart if even one train is delayed.

So what would your solution be?

Increase the minimum connection time so you could no longer change onto that Liverpool train?

The fact that was a given itinerary means that even a slightly longer delay on the Avanti would have led to a missed connection and delay repay. Are you saying you should not have that delay repay?

It is difficult to know what people want in this situation.

 

[Sorcerer]

So what would your solution be?

Increase the minimum connection time so you could no longer change onto that Liverpool train?

The fact that was a given itinerary means that even a slightly longer delay on the Avanti would have led to a missed connection and delay repay. Are you saying you should not have that delay repay?

It is difficult to know what people want in this situation.

All things considered I think it was the right thing to do for them to delay the train slightly so connecting passengers could catch the Northern back to Liverpool. My assertion was simply that a five-minute connection at stations like Wigan North Western is perfectly reasonable as long as things go right which means either trying to run to time or delaying connecting trains would be preferable.

 

[xotGD]

I'd rather have a 5 minute connection that I make 8 times out of 10 than a 'guaranteed' 35 minute connection, because the official minimum is 10 minutes.

 

[kkong]

Aberdeen has a MCT of 5 minutes.

I wouldn't want to be on a 5 minute connection from the first class end of an LNER arrival at P5 onto a departure from P7N or P7S.

Two sets of ticket barriers, c.500m walking and either two flights of stairs or two lifts.

 

[etr221]

I'd rather have a 5 minute connection that I make 8 times out of 10 than a 'guaranteed' 35 minute connection, because the official minimum is 10 minutes.

Last year, wanted to travel East Croydon to Hampton Court (HMC), obvious journey is via Clapham Junction (CLJ) - where (up Central fast line to down SW Main slow) there is a cross platform connection, so 5 minutes more than enough - but the MCT at CLJ is 10 minutes, so the 8 minutes from 'best' Southern service isn't there on the system, I'm directed to the previous Southern service 9 minutes earlier, for a 17 minute connection for a 55 minute journey time - or I could get the later Southern train, for a 10 minute up and over for a fast train to Surbiton and a 7 minute cross platform connection there.
And for my sister, coming from Chichester, on what is the optimal Southern train for CLJ connection what was offered was either a single 38 minute connection at CLJ, or three connections (at Havant, Woking and Surbiton), far more hassle... (now, which was more likely to be made: the 'unofficial', less than MCT, 8 minute connection we did actually make with ease (and time to worry about other sister), or the 'official' three, one being only 7 minutes?

And, travelling from East Croydon to Enfield Chase: obvious, easy, route Thameslink, change to GN at Finsbury Park - early evening (peak) four trains per hour on each part of journey. But only options show up: the trains on one half of the journey aren't evenly 15 minutes apart, so the 'connections' are 6 (ok) and 4 (not) minutes - again, cross platform, so both should be fine (and I wonder how often 6 minutes is enough when 4 isn't?). And, returning later in the evening, when only 2 tph on the GN, I made the couple of minutes connection, with a one rather then 15 minute wait.

 

[NCT]

The question is really simple - do we give up on a connection based railway altogether. Connections north of 20 minutes become unattractive. If MCT is north of 5 minutes, then you are placing far too great a constraint on the railway for offering good connections.

For what is worth, you do need brisk walks to make Swiss connections. The 'famous' 4-minute connection at Lugano (where the interchange is not cross-platform) is hit-and-miss at best. Cross platform interchanges can be as little as 2 minutes, and if you are not in the know (i.e. normally connections are held for low-level inbound delays) you find your heart racing. From my experience, the Swiss philosophy is that the connection-based timetable is intended for those who are of reasonable fitness. Anyone from 'middle aged with suitcases' onwards is expected to wait a service headway.

 

[blimmo]

Last year, wanted to travel East Croydon to Hampton Court (HMC), obvious journey is via Clapham Junction (CLJ) - where (up Central fast line to down SW Main slow) there is a cross platform connection, so 5 minutes more than enough - but the MCT at CLJ is 10 minutes, so the 8 minutes from 'best' Southern service isn't there on the system, I'm directed to the previous Southern service 9 minutes earlier, for a 17 minute connection for a 55 minute journey time - or I could get the later Southern train, for a 10 minute up and over for a fast train to Surbiton and a 7 minute cross platform connection there.
And for my sister, coming from Chichester, on what is the optimal Southern train for CLJ connection what was offered was either a single 38 minute connection at CLJ, or three connections (at Havant, Woking and Surbiton), far more hassle... (now, which was more likely to be made: the 'unofficial', less than MCT, 8 minute connection we did actually make with ease (and time to worry about other sister), or the 'official' three, one being only 7 minutes?

And, travelling from East Croydon to Enfield Chase: obvious, easy, route Thameslink, change to GN at Finsbury Park - early evening (peak) four trains per hour on each part of journey. But only options show up: the trains on one half of the journey aren't evenly 15 minutes apart, so the 'connections' are 6 (ok) and 4 (not) minutes - again, cross platform, so both should be fine (and I wonder how often 6 minutes is enough when 4 isn't?). And, returning later in the evening, when only 2 tph on the GN, I made the couple of minutes connection, with a one rather then 15 minute wait.

This is my answer to the suggestion that delay repay should be reduced for those wanting tighter connections. There is already plenty of variation in the reliability of itineraries and therefore the likelihood of having to pay delay repay. I don't see why the railway needs to prevent me getting delay repay on a single cross London connection when it will happily pay out for a 4 connection monstrosity involving cross country.

The question is really simple - do we give up on a connection based railway altogether. Connections north of 20 minutes become unattractive. If MCT is north of 5 minutes, then you are placing far too great a constraint on the railway for offering good connections.

For what is worth, you do need brisk walks to make Swiss connections. The 'famous' 4-minute connection at Lugano (where the interchange is not cross-platform) is hit-and-miss at best. Cross platform interchanges can be as little as 2 minutes, and if you are not in the know (i.e. normally connections are held for low-level inbound delays) you find your heart racing. From my experience, the Swiss philosophy is that the connection-based timetable is intended for those who are of reasonable fitness. Anyone from 'middle aged with suitcases' onwards is expected to wait a service headway.

I don't think we need to give up on giving people journeys with connections. We just need to produce realistic itineraries for all sorts of people. However we choose to design the actual timetabling we should be able to show someone a journey that respects both their time and their mobility to the maximum extent possible with the timetable that exists.

 

[yorkie]

Aberdeen has a MCT of 5 minutes.

I wouldn't want to be on a 5 minute connection from the first class end of an LNER arrival at P5 onto a departure from P7N or P7S.

You don't need to; you can specify additional interchange time when booking. It's on our ticketing site, under advanced options.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2026 ==

We just need to produce realistic itineraries for all sorts of people. However we choose to design the actual timetabling we should be able to show someone a journey that respects both their time and their mobility to the maximum extent possible with the timetable that exists.

Anyone requiring additional interchange time has the ability to do it.

Perhaps it should be more prominent, rather than tucked away under advanced options, but the option is there...

 

[blimmo]

Anyone requiring additional interchange time has the ability to do it.

Perhaps it should be more prominent, rather than tucked away under advanced options, but the option is there..

Yes, which is why I object to suggestions that the minimum connection time be set to one that everyone can make. (Or even the average since that still disrespects the time of half the population)

 

[35B]

Yes, which is why I object to suggestions that the minimum connection time be set to one that everyone can make. (Or even the average since that still disrespects the time of half the population)

No it doesn’t. The average will undoubtedly be clustered in a bell curve, with the vast majority quite tightly clustered and then a small proportion quite widely spread either shorter or longer.

Rail is a mass transit medium, and cannot be fully bespoke. Many of the functions of planning will rely on averages; MCTs are one of those.

One of those variables is the level of knowledge of the traveller. There is an asymmetry of harm between the cost of delay to knowledgeable travellers, and the presumption of knowledge of less-knowledgeable travellers. An MCT needs to respect that difference, not be a “you should have known” trap for those who don’t know the finer details of how to drive a booking system.

The desire to be able to beat the MCT isn’t inherently unreasonable but needs compromise between what the vendor is offering and what the customer wants. If Delay Repay is the guarantee of service delivery, it is reasonable for the vendor to limit their liability against decisions that individual customers may then make.

The real culprit here is not the MCT but a fares system that has evolved so that the theoretical norm is in reality the most expensive option on sale, and the fixed tickets that offer reductions are the de facto norm. If the through flexible ticket were the normal price, this issue would be much less material.

 

[blimmo]

No it doesn’t. The average will undoubtedly be clustered in a bell curve, with the vast majority quite tightly clustered and then a small proportion quite widely spread either shorter or longer.

Except the point with connections is that there is a sharp cut off. So if the connection time necessary to make the earlier train is 24 mins and the average time taken to make the connections is 25 mins then setting the MCT at the average will inconvenience (just under) half of the population (to the tune of 1 hour if it's a 1tph service).

I appreciate I'm showing a particularly bad example but an example almost that bad happens to me and I think you would be more in agreement with me if it happened to you.

Rail is a mass transit medium, and cannot be fully bespoke. Many of the functions of planning will rely on averages; MCTs are one of those.

But the itineraries really could be if they just allowed people to select decreased time for changes as well as increased (down to a realistic limit). Ofc the actual infrastructure can't be bespoke but as @bahnause said earlier we should really be trying to squeeze as much journey time improvement as possible out of connections since improving journey time by infrastructure is incredibly expensive.

The desire to be able to beat the MCT isn’t inherently unreasonable but needs compromise between what the vendor is offering and what the customer wants. If Delay Repay is the guarantee of service delivery, it is reasonable for the vendor to limit their liability against decisions that individual customers may then make.

I would be happy for the railway to reduce delay repay entitlement for riskier journeys but I think they should do that consistently or not at all. Hence there should be lower entitlement on journeys with many connections as well as those with tighter ones. Or the railway can decide that's not worth the cost of administration, that's fine too.

The real culprit here is not the MCT but a fares system that has evolved so that the theoretical norm is in reality the most expensive option on sale, and the fixed tickets that offer reductions are the de facto norm. If the through flexible ticket were the normal price, this issue would be much less material.

I agree with this but I am entirely happy to commit to specific trains in my example. My problem is that I can't get specific trains to commit to that are actually a reasonable itinerary. Making the reduced flexibility discount only available if you're willing to travel with extra large connections is a bit annoying even if the discount wasn't as huge as it is today.

Also even if there was no discount at all, showing an unrealistically large journey time for someone who is willing to do what it takes to make the journey as quick as possible makes train travel less appealing. Kenilworth to Felixstowe is less than 3 hours by car, 4.5 hours by train is a much less attractive than the real 3.5.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with this but I am entirely happy to commit to specific trains in my example. My problem is that I can't get specific trains to commit to that are actually a reasonable itinerary. Making the reduced flexibility discount only available if you're willing to travel with extra large connections is a bit annoying even if the discount wasn't as huge as it is today.

A workaround is to split, with the last local leg being a flexible ticket, and just treat it as two journeys. I very often do this if using Advances on the ECML where flexible tickets (even outside the trial area) are poor value. It can cost more but it doesn't always, sometimes it's even cheaper.

 

[The exile]

A workaround is to split, with the last local leg being a flexible ticket, and just treat it as two journeys. I very often do this if using Advances on the ECML where flexible tickets (even outside the trial area) are poor value. It can cost more but it doesn't always, sometimes it's even cheaper.

Doesn’t work so well, of course, if the bit that requires the flexible ticket is at the beginning or in the middle!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn’t work so well, of course, if the bit that requires the flexible ticket is at the beginning or in the middle!

Yes, that's true. But a very common use case is "into <nearest big city> then onwards by intercity train", and it works well for that use case, I do it often when travelling via London.

Ill advised of course not to leave the MCT on the outward as you could lose the value of your Advance if the connection is missed, but I mostly want longer on the outward anyway for time to pick up provisions for the journey. But very handy for the way back when you just want to board the first local train you can. It also means as it's two journeys (under MCT cannot be considered to be one) claiming Delay Repay just for the IC bit is legit, and that can often be to your advantage in that direction, particularly given how woeful the punctuality on GWR's Cornish services is.

 

[bahnause]

But on the way back the train at Preston incurred a four-minute delay which meant I now had a three-minute connection to get off the train, run through the underpass and up the platform. Thankfully the train was held for a bit, most likely to accommodate connecting passengers. But it showed me just how quickly things could fall apart if even one train is delayed.

A delay to the feeder train does not automatically have to result in a missed connection, even if the minimum transfer time is not met anymore. Nor does a decision if the connecting train has to be held has to be made in each case; alternative scenarios can be defined in advance. For example: Waiting times in the event of delays can be defined. Ideally, these 'standard scenarios' should run automatically, providing all real-time information in good time. Only ‘at-risk’ or ‘near-disconnected’ connections in must be actively and manually managed (before the automatic system has published its decision to the customer inforamtion system...)

 

[blimmo]

A workaround is to split, with the last local leg being a flexible ticket, and just treat it as two journeys. I very often do this if using Advances on the ECML where flexible tickets (even outside the trial area) are poor value. It can cost more but it doesn't always, sometimes it's even cheaper.

Unfortunately for me the problematic MCT is the cross London one in the middle of my journey. The connection time to the local train is actually very reasonable, but the excessive cross London one means it's impossible to make the earlier local train which means waiting an hour.

I have used flexible tickets on one part of the journey splitting at London but on a return that means I still have to leave the MCT in one direction and if travelling only one way flexible tickets are even worse value (20p less than a return).

 

[xotGD]

A workaround is to split, with the last local leg being a flexible ticket, and just treat it as two journeys. I very often do this if using Advances on the ECML where flexible tickets (even outside the trial area) are poor value. It can cost more but it doesn't always, sometimes it's even cheaper.

If we didn't have the nonsense of having to travel on a specific local connecting train there'd be no need for the workaround.

 

[yorkie]

Yes, which is why I object to suggestions that the minimum connection time be set to one that everyone can make. (Or even the average since that still disrespects the time of half the population)

I agree, but there is never going to be consensus on the issue; some people will take the view that if some people can't achieve something, then no-one should be able to, and you won't be able to change their minds!

If we didn't have the nonsense of having to travel on a specific local connecting train there'd be no need for the workaround.

Absolutely this! It used to be the case that appropriate connecting services could be used, and this changed when local TOCs such as Northern, GTR, etc started doing their own Advances

 

[xotGD]

Absolutely this! It used to be the case that appropriate connecting services could be used, and this changed when local TOCs such as Northern, GTR, etc started doing their own Advances

But I am definitely not advocating getting rid of Northern Advances. They save me a lot of money!

 

[yorkie]

But I am definitely not advocating getting rid of Northern Advances. They save me a lot of money!

They are not mutually exclusive; indeed GTR have an easement allowing the use of appropriate connecting services when they are the connection.

There is nothing stopping Northern doing this (if they have anyone who has competence and pragmatism in their pricing / ticketing department!)

 

[markymark2000]

One connection time that always surprised me is Pontypridd. It's set as 3 minutes. Which isn't long if you are crossing from the southbound to northbound platforms. Nor if, as TFW were doing, Rail Replacement bus > Train connections. All other stations are set at 5 minutes that I can see so perhaps another anomaly that TFW haven't picked up on, or it's deliberate but silly.

 

[Chiltern006]

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.

See below from my Railmiles - was a sprint but not impossible (train was down far end of 1 too)

 

[johntea]

Coincidentally it seems many people at Wakefield Kirkgate will be making a 5 minute connection dash this weekend due to various engineering works as Manchester - York via Wakefield has been changed to Manchester - Sheffield via Wakefield with a Wakefield - York contained service to connect to for passengers

e.g. arrive from Manchester 09:58 Platform 3 depart to York 10:02 Platform 1

I have just done the journey and could see arriving into Wakefield no train on Platform 1 but that didn’t deter many passengers trying to be Usain Bolt (I assume TPE are smart enough to hold the York train a few minutes if the service in from Manchester is delayed of course!)