"Train doors may close 30 seconds before departure" - what a nonsense

[Oswyntail]

This is nonsense. Of course the TOCs run the railway for the benefit of the passengers, to suggest anything else is ludicrous. Go and work for a TOC and see how much emphasis is placed on the 'customer experience' (for want of a better phrase), part of which includes trying to dispatch trains safely and on time, which is what the vast majority of customers expect. We don't always get it right, but to suggest that there is a wilful attempt to ignore passengers' requirements is ridiculous and insulting.

I'm glad you start your post with a warning about it.
It is plainly obvious to anyone travelling that a lot of the procedures have been drawn up to suit operational matters and not customer (or staff) requirements. For instance: small timetable changes that break previous connections; rostering staff between trains such that there is no room for error or delay; ticketing and routing(as discussed almost everywhere on this board). This may be down to TOCs putting revenue above customer satisfaction, or penalties for SLA breaches, or the inefficiencies of privatisation. It is, of course, wrapped in 1984-style doublespeak about "customer experience", to convince passengers that their experience - which is all too often ****poor - is actually very good. The good, honest staff who are leaping to defend the practices here are not being blamed or (except in certain specifics) criticised. But to maintain that a "departure at 23:00" must mean departure at 23:00:00 and so doors have to be closed and locked up to a minute before that time is ludicrous, and can only have its origins not in customer requirements but in a desire to build in as much recovery time as possible into schedules without there seeming to be any increase in journey time.

 

[BRX]

This is nonsense. Of course the TOCs run the railway for the benefit of the passengers, to suggest anything else is ludicrous. Go and work for a TOC and see how much emphasis is placed on the 'customer experience' (for want of a better phrase), part of which includes trying to dispatch trains safely and on time, which is what the vast majority of customers expect. We don't always get it right, but to suggest that there is a wilful attempt to ignore passengers' requirements is ridiculous and insulting.

Whatever "emphasis" might be placed on the customer experience in the staff brainwashing sessions, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Off the top of my head...
Been on a couple of FGW trains recently. On some trains they have a carriage where all the seat backs have TV screens on them. This offers you some kind of "entertainment centre". Want "entertainment"? Well you have to pay for it by buying a pass. Don't want "entertainment"? Switch the screen off and it comes back on again within a couple of minutes, offering you this entertainment that you have to pay for. This is not about improving the passenger experience, it's about dredging the passengers for every last drop of revenue they can get.
Virgin trains deliberately leave off competitor's services on their online journey planner. How does that improve the passenger experience?

I'm not saying that everything and every operator is all bad. But you can't deny that a TOC's main motivator is revenue. Arguably it's not really their fault - they are doing what any competitive commercial organisation does. Largely it's a lack of serious regulation. The well discussed on here shambles that was "fares simplification" is a prime example of the failure of co-ordinated regulation acting in the passenger's interest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well unfortunately it does, I know of examples where 4 minutes made £3K a day difference.

Can you expand a little? In what context? Was that revenue transferring from one rail operator to another or loss of business to other modes of transport? Was it 4 minutes of actual journey time or 4 minutes of perceived journey time?

 

[pendolino]

I'm glad you start your post with a warning about it.
It is plainly obvious to anyone travelling that a lot of the procedures have been drawn up to suit operational matters and not customer (or staff) requirements. For instance: small timetable changes that break previous connections; rostering staff between trains such that there is no room for error or delay; ticketing and routing(as discussed almost everywhere on this board). This may be down to TOCs putting revenue above customer satisfaction, or penalties for SLA breaches, or the inefficiencies of privatisation. It is, of course, wrapped in 1984-style doublespeak about "customer experience", to convince passengers that their experience - which is all too often ****poor - is actually very good. The good, honest staff who are leaping to defend the practices here are not being blamed or (except in certain specifics) criticised. But to maintain that a "departure at 23:00" must mean departure at 23:00:00 and so doors have to be closed and locked up to a minute before that time is ludicrous, and can only have its origins not in customer requirements but in a desire to build in as much recovery time as possible into schedules without there seeming to be any increase in journey time.

No-one is trying to convince passengers that their experience is always very good - that's an extremely disingenuous claim to make. There is a lot that the railway gets wrong, but no-one is complacent about this and we spend a lot of time and effort trying to get things right (a case in point: my TOC has just launched a project involving seconded staff from all levels of the organisation to try and improve information to passengers during disruption, as it is recognised that this has been a major failing in recent times). I can tell you categorically that every effort is made to try and do things right for the customer.

The suggestion that operational requirements take precedence over customer requirements is erroneous. Certain procedures (especially safety critical ones), timetabling etc. may appear that way, but there is a bigger picture, and things are planned so that the best possible service is provided to meet the needs of the majority of customers. Of course this means that some passengers will be disappointed as it will not be possible to meet everyone's individual requirements (like certain connections) with the infrastructure, staffing, rolling stock etc. that we have available. A service may have to leave at 23h00 precisely because if it doesn't, it may miss its path and end up being late at the destination, which would mean a delay for those passengers who boarded in time, and for passengers on any returning service. And because the vast majority of passengers expect their train, timetabled to leave at 23h00, to actually leave at 23h00, and not a few minutes late to accommodate a minority of stragglers.

There's really no conspiracy to try and deny passengers the best service we can provide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whatever "emphasis" might be placed on the customer experience in the staff brainwashing sessions, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Well, if you're convinced that staff are brainwashed, then there's not really any point me trying to persuade you otherwise.

 

[BRX]

A service may have to leave at 23h00 precisely because if it doesn't, it may miss its path and end up being late at the destination, which would mean a delay for those passengers who boarded in time, and for passengers on any returning service. And because the vast majority of passengers expect their train, timetabled to leave at 23h00, to actually leave at 23h00, and not a few minutes late to accommodate a minority of stragglers.

This is just a straw man. The suggestion is that the departure time in the timetable should be the time after which you can no longer board the train. No one supporting this idea is suggesting any arrangement where trains are delayed to accommodate stragglers.

 

[pendolino]

This is just a straw man. The suggestion is that the departure time in the timetable should be the time after which you can no longer board the train. No one supporting this idea is suggesting any arrangement where trains are delayed to accommodate stragglers.

The time in the timetable is when the train leaves, not the time after which you cannot board the train, a point which most posters in this thread seem to be able to grasp.

 

[BRX]

The time in the timetable is when the train leaves, not the time after which you cannot board the train, a point which most posters in this thread seem to be able to grasp.

Yes, and the whole point of this thread is that I'm saying that it would be better for the time in the timetable to be the time after which you cannot board the train and not the time when it actually leaves.

As I say in the very first post:

If you want to close doors a bit ahead of the actual departure time, fair enough, but then you should simply advertise that time on the timetable.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just to be absolutely clear:


Current system
Departure time in timetable: 12.34
Actual time train starts to move: 12.34 (or maybe slightly after)
Time after which you can't board the train: 12.32.00 or 12.32.30 or 12.33.00 or 12.33.15 or 12.33.30 or 12.33.50 depending on station and other variables and only known to passenger when they arrive at station
Time train gets to destination: 14.15


Proposed system
Departure time in timetable: 12.33
Actual time train starts to move: 12.34 (or maybe slightly after)
Time after which you can't board the train: 12.33
Time train gets to destination: 14.15

 

[NSEFAN]

Yes, and the whole point of this thread is that I'm saying that it would be better for the time in the timetable to be the time after which you cannot board the train and not the time when it actually leaves.

Isn't this why there are posters in the station stating that the doors close some time before the train departs? The problem seems to be more inconsistency in the time required to lock the doors, which is inevitable when you mix trains with different door systems. Furthermore, the timetables don't take into account the size of the station and the time required to actually get to the platform. Does this mean for larger stations, the printed departure time would be even earlier than reality? (say, 5 minutes for places like Clapham Junction and Reading)

Also, what's to stop people get complacent? They know that the train departs a minute later than the timetabled time, so they make a dash for it anyway just incase the guard will let them on.

 

[The Planner]

Can you expand a little? In what context? Was that revenue transferring from one rail operator to another or loss of business to other modes of transport? Was it 4 minutes of actual journey time or 4 minutes of perceived journey time?

It was £3K in revenue lost to the railway per day, people considered a sub 1 hour journey time to be a decision maker in the way they travelled. It was 4 minutes in actual journey time (however, if you move to the way you are suggesting, people are still going to see it as a time extension regardless)

 

[blacknight]

Yes, and the whole point of this thread is that I'm saying that it would be better for the time in the timetable to be the time after which you cannot board the train and not the time when it actually leaves.

As I say in the very first post:


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just to be absolutely clear:


Current system
Departure time in timetable: 12.34
Actual time train starts to move: 12.34 (or maybe slightly after)
Time after which you can't board the train: 12.32.00 or 12.32.30 or 12.33.00 or 12.33.15 or 12.33.30 or 12.33.50 depending on station and other variables and only known to passenger when they arrive at station
Time train gets to destination: 14.15


Proposed system
Departure time in timetable: 12.33
Actual time train starts to move: 12.34 (or maybe slightly after)
Time after which you can't board the train: 12.33
Time train gets to destination: 14.15

So we now have 1 timetable for staff & 1 for passengers that will work well not, for instance you ask me which platform 12.33 is on & I have not got a 12.33 on my running order or you have AP ticket for 12.33 valid on that service only but I have no 12.33 service Sir.
What time should be displayed on departure boards doors closing or departure time?
As previously stated both EMT & East Coast publish door closure policy in timetable so if it ain't broke dont attempt to fix system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely it is not "departing the station" overall that matters, but starting to move from the platform, so acceleration is irrelevant.

If you want train to arrive at your station on time I would think that time of departure from last station would be a matter of interest.
If train is advertised as 12.34 departure then logic would be that at a point in time prior to 12.34 as to chosen to start dispatch for trian to depart 12.34.xx.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

So we now have 1 timetable for staff & 1 for passengers that will work well not,

There have been two timetables for probably as long as their has been a railway, certainly since BR days and probably well well before that. It's called the Working Time Table/WTT (the staff version) and then the public or GBTT timetable quoted on websites and in timetables.

This WTT differs from the GBTT in that it is more detailed, of course. It show's the headcode, routing (eg Fast Line / Slow Line), booked platform, time over junctions and any recovery/pathing allowance.

One important difference though is that it show's an actual departure time, and show's it in 30 second increments wrote as 10.00H meaning 10.00.30. There are many trains with even more than 30 seconds, the usually 1 or two mintues later than the public time. The WTT never shows a time earlier than the public timetable except for Set Down only stops.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A service may have to leave at 23h00 precisely because if it doesn't, it may miss its path and end up being late at the destination,

Even on today's busy railway trains are not routinely pathed so tightly. The usual rule of thumb is 3 minutes for junction working, so to suggest that trains will miss there path for being 30 seconds late is misleading. If there is a specific train that has to be pathed on a tighter margin, then the answer is not to lock up the train early and deny boarding. The answer is to alter the GBTT to show departure 1 minute previous.

Why punish thousands of people with artifically early train departures across the country for the sake of a few that have tight margins? Just alter those ones!

 

[radamfi]

Why didn't BR close doors early that much?

 

[blacknight]

Maybe because in the days of BR DWELL was an unthought of concept, train either arrived to time or it was late & didnot waste time trying to explain away the odd minute of delay along the route.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Maybe because in the days of BR DWELL was an unthought of concept, train either arrived to time or it was late & didnot waste time trying to explain away the odd minute of delay along the route.

They still don't ask for the odd minute of delay. Usually it's 3 minutues before a delay will be created, but I have know the odd 2 minutes be recorded. The only exceptions to this are speed restrictions, which have an auto generated attribution of 1 minute or more.

 

[TDK]

Why didn't BR close doors early that much?

Because in BR days most of the trains were slam door and the late passengers left them open

 

[michael769]

Why didn't BR close doors early that much?

Because they allowed staff to consider the timetable as optional!

 

[radamfi]

Because in BR days most of the trains were slam door and the late passengers left them open

But by the time the Passenger's Charter started most trains outside the SE were sliding door and Mk3 coaches were getting door locks. They did introduce timetable padding at the end of the journey to help meet the Charter.

 

[Minstral25]

This always develops into a highly passionate argument.

I can understand why a long distance train may close its doors earlier than the departure time and most passengers will be there early anyway because of the irregular nature of the services. These are a bit like flights.

However commuter and metro services should shut the doors on the departure time, the style of these services means passengers often arrive in the dying seconds before a train departs and to find the train locked on the platform or departing a few seconds early is extremely frustrating for the passenger standing on the platform especially if they have run for the train.

The reason this is frustrating as they are going through a station seeing the train departure time and trying to achieve it based on the clocks in the station especially the departure boards. If they advertised throughout the station the time of departure as the 30 seconds earlier door closing time then that would be OK but they don't.

 

[swt_passenger]

The reason this is frustrating as they are going through a station seeing the train departure time and trying to achieve it based on the clocks in the station especially the departure boards. If they advertised throughout the station the time of departure as the 30 seconds earlier door closing time then that would be OK but they don't.

But unless the passenger is particularly stupid it will only ever happen once...

 

[jon0844]

Been on a couple of FGW trains recently. On some trains they have a carriage where all the seat backs have TV screens on them. This offers you some kind of "entertainment centre". Want "entertainment"? Well you have to pay for it by buying a pass. Don't want "entertainment"? Switch the screen off and it comes back on again within a couple of minutes, offering you this entertainment that you have to pay for. This is not about improving the passenger experience, it's about dredging the passengers for every last drop of revenue they can get.

I totally disagree here. For one, they're really good screens and work well - my wife watched a movie when we went to Wales earlier this year. Okay, so the company that fitted them handed out free vouchers to everyone on the day - but still. They show up to date films and TV shows and the concept is sound. Imagine flying without any form of entertainment? Well, FGW have some journeys that are comparable with a flight.

Not everyone has their own smartphone/tablet/media player to watch movies or listen to music - or the content to actually watch (and that also means forward planning). It's not even that expensive and it gives an alternative to looking around the train or outside the window. My wife thought the concept was excellent, and I'm inclined to agree, as it may just entice people (especially families) to travel more by train and keep the small ones entertained.

It's a shame it's only coach D for now, and there's nothing in first class (not everyone in first wants to work!). FGW could even offer all films free in FC as another incentive to upgrade.

Like power sockets, this is something to improve rail travel so let's not use it as a way of attacking FGW for being greedy.

(Anyway - back on topic...)

 

[CheekyBandit]

You cna;t arrive at an airport three minutes before the flight leaves and expect to get on either.

Don't think I would have been too happy if I missed a connecting flight where my incoming flight was delayed and had a 10-15 minute window to go through passport control (had to try and jump a fairly long queue) and then find the gate.

 

[Minstral25]

But unless the passenger is particularly stupid it will only ever happen once...

Thanks

 

[BRX]

But unless the passenger is particularly stupid it will only ever happen once...

Happens to me more than once.

Is that because I'm stupid or because the doors-closed time is inconsistent and different at different stations and I have other things to fill my dodgy memory up with, than the doors-closed times at all the different stations I use?

Doesn't matter really whether you want to define it as stupidity. It happens, so why not use a sensible system that would eliminate the problem?

It depends whether you think the railways should be run to suit passengers' needs, or as a kind of obstacle course to challenge them with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I totally disagree here. For one, they're really good screens and work well - my wife watched a movie when we went to Wales earlier this year. Okay, so the company that fitted them handed out free vouchers to everyone on the day - but still. They show up to date films and TV shows and the concept is sound. Imagine flying without any form of entertainment? Well, FGW have some journeys that are comparable with a flight.

Not everyone has their own smartphone/tablet/media player to watch movies or listen to music - or the content to actually watch (and that also means forward planning). It's not even that expensive and it gives an alternative to looking around the train or outside the window. My wife thought the concept was excellent, and I'm inclined to agree, as it may just entice people (especially families) to travel more by train and keep the small ones entertained.

It's a shame it's only coach D for now, and there's nothing in first class (not everyone in first wants to work!). FGW could even offer all films free in FC as another incentive to upgrade.

Like power sockets, this is something to improve rail travel so let's not use it as a way of attacking FGW for being greedy.

(Anyway - back on topic...)

If it were possible to switch it off then it would be fine. Sure, some people will like it and might even spend the £3.50 a journey it costs to use it.

The point is mainly about it being impossible to switch it off. If it were there for the passenger's benefit then you'd be able to choose whether you want it or not. The fact that it's always on and in your face trying to get you to pay up and use it suggests that its main purpose is to generate income.

 

[Greenback]

This thread is still gong strong then?!

This always develops into a highly passionate argument.

It seems only threads about unions are more passionate!

I can understand why a long distance train may close its doors earlier than the departure time and most passengers will be there early anyway because of the irregular nature of the services. These are a bit like flights.

Quite correct so far!

However commuter and metro services should shut the doors on the departure time, the style of these services means passengers often arrive in the dying seconds before a train departs and to find the train locked on the platform or departing a few seconds early is extremely frustrating for the passenger standing on the platform especially if they have run for the train.

Fair enough. Although I would like to point out that some commuter services (ie those thatc arry a lot of commuters) also carry longer distance passengers. The difference between these types of services is not always clear cut.

But that's just me being a little bit pedantic!

The reason this is frustrating as they are going through a station seeing the train departure time and trying to achieve it based on the clocks in the station especially the departure boards. If they advertised throughout the station the time of departure as the 30 seconds earlier door closing time then that would be OK but they don't.

Wouldn't that cause confusion where someone had seen the 1730 departure on their app/a website/ their ticket/paper timetable, only to arrive at the station and not see a 1730 advertised, only a 1728 or a 1729?

Happens to me more than once.

Is that because I'm stupid or because the doors-closed time is inconsistent and different at different stations and I have other things to fill my dodgy memory up with, than the doors-closed times at all the different stations I use?

Doesn't matter really whether you want to define it as stupidity. It happens, so why not use a sensible system that would eliminate the problem?

The most sensible suggestion so far has been for the WTT to have trains departing at xx:xx:30 instead of xx:xx:00. That way, not timetbales or screens need to be altered at all, the doors still close in good time for a punctual departure, and, in theory at least, everyone is happy.

If a long distance TOC thinks they need to close and lock the doors more than 30 seconds before departure, they need to make that perfectly clear on all of their publications - timetables, websites, posters, apps, whatever.

It depends whether you think the railways should be run to suit passengers' needs, or as a kind of obstacle course to challenge them with.

The railway will never be able to run to suit the needs of every passenger. At the moment, it is run to try and suit passengers, shareholders and taxpayers (the Treasury). There are clearly going to be some problems with that!

I think where my views and yours might differ comes from the premise that the doro closing policy is in some way anti passenger. I don't think it is, in principle, as it exists to try and help ensure that trains ar epunctual. Most passengers want their trains to run on time after all.

There can probably be better ways of operating it, like the suggestion above, and of communicating it. Essentailly though, ther eis a set procedure for the despatch of trains which means that there will always be a delay between the doors being locked and the train pulling away. Often, that is much less than 30 seconds*, as I can testify myself! In those cases I am lucky, other times I am unlucky, it often comes down to a couple of seconds longer crossing the road outside the station.

*My train yesterday closed the doors at 08:54:46 for an 0855 departure, today my train closed the doors at 13:59:53 for a 1400 departure!

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks

I was referring to passengers in general, like you were...

 

[cambsy]

Euston shuts its barriers 2 mins before departure and can leave up to min or so early,it takes a good minute to get pendolino ready to leave,shut doors and give ping to driver to leave,they have to i suppose because very intensive service,

 

[Flamingo]

I've just checked the minimum connection time for Newport South Wales and it is given as 5 minutes. That seems very short considering the size of the station and the distance between platforms, involving longish flights of stairs and bridge crossings.

We will be arriving from Hereford on an AP timed ticket (so cannot get an earlier train) with 10 minutes connection time before the departure of our train to Southampton, and we will have to use the lift as we'll have large suitcases. If the lift is in use (or out of order!), it will be a real push to get to platform 4 within 10 minutes, so if the train doors shut early we might miss the train through absolutely no fault of our own. If our first train is delayed even by a couple of minutes we're sunk.

What would be the AP ticket policy re. catching a later train in these circs?

Probably OK, as most train crew realise what a ****-up the new Newport station is. Get it stamped / have a word with platform staff to be on the safe side.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I saw a first at Paddington last night. A network rail buggy carrying an elderly passenger turned up just to late to catch a FGW HST that had just turned the door lights out. I thought they may have let them on but no off the train went. Harsh or justified?

1. Doors are not to be unlocked after locking unless in an emergency. Late passengers (able bodied or otherwise) are not an emergency.
2. The "ready to start" signal will be given by the guard as soon as they have the door closed. The only safe way to cancel that and open doors again (as opposed to just stopping the train) is pull the pascom, to prevent the train from moving. This then involves a chat to the driver - more delays.
3. The time taken to load a limited-mobility passenger into the train will delay it for minutes, then a new dispatch procedure. Total delay minimum five minutes in that scenario, meanwhile the Heathrow Express or someone outside the station is waiting for the train to get it's act together and move - total cumulative delays may be 15-20 minutes at around £150 a minute.

If it was my train, unless it was the last one, I would refuse to re-open the door in that situation - and would be (rightly) chewed out by my manager if I did open the door.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Regards the OP and the increasingly more outlandish scenarios, the bottom line is tough, doors are closed 30 seconds before departure to allow for wheels turning at XX:XX:00 . That's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[BRX]

The most sensible suggestion so far has been for the WTT to have trains departing at xx:xx:30 instead of xx:xx:00. That way, not timetbales or screens need to be altered at all, the doors still close in good time for a punctual departure, and, in theory at least, everyone is happy.

That would be fine with me but surely it would be easier to change the passenger timetable rather than the WTT?

The railway will never be able to run to suit the needs of every passenger. At the moment, it is run to try and suit passengers, shareholders and taxpayers (the Treasury). There are clearly going to be some problems with that!

I think where my views and yours might differ comes from the premise that the doro closing policy is in some way anti passenger. I don't think it is, in principle, as it exists to try and help ensure that trains ar epunctual. Most passengers want their trains to run on time after all.

I understand that you can't ever keep everyone happy.

I can see that the current door closing policies exist to try and keep the trains punctual. Punctual trains are in the interests of passengers and TOCs. The reason I feel they are anti-passenger, though, is that they create a situation of confusion and then seem to blame the passenger if he/she is unaware of the early closing policy. There is a very simple way of making sure the passenger is absolutely clear about when they have to be at the train - put that time in the timetable. Anyway I'm just repeating myself now.

It would be interesting to ask this question on a non-railway forum. I reckon there would be a larger proportion of people who'd support the idea of the timetable showing the doors-closed time.

I think that maybe partly what happens here is that there are some rail staff who like to have a rant about "idiot" passengers and the red mist descends when anyone mentions anything involving passengers trying to get on the train at the last minute. They like to tell why it is that preparing or dispatching a train takes x minutes and how passengers don't appreciate what's involved in achieving this. That's all irrelevant though. Doesn't matter if it takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes to dispatch a train. Passengers don't need to know that. They just need to know when to get to their train so they don't miss it.

 

[jon0844]

The fact that it's always on and in your face trying to get you to pay up and use it suggests that its main purpose is to generate income.

Selling tea and coffee or snacks is also to generate income, but it also provides a service that makes travel more comfortable.

I do agree that it's a bit annoying how it comes back to life, but I believe it does this only when passing stations - on the basis that it has no way of knowing if someone who switched it off has alighted and a new person has come on who might want to use it (and wonders why it's off).

Give them some credit; the way it works is probably the only way to stop people turning them all off and no money is made at all.

 

[tony_mac]

FWIW, I also think it's a bit silly having a load of different variables for 'The doors for X TOC trains at Y Station will close Z seconds before the timetable says' - and all the associated posters it needs and people it annoys.
Just one time for everything would seem to be more sensible, it's not as if it involves changing the times that the trains run.

But, you know what some people are like - 'That's the way we do things, we have our own reasons that suit us, therefore it's your problem if you don't like it'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the moment, it is run to try and suit passengers, shareholders and taxpayers (the Treasury).

and employees.

 

[LAX54]

It's becoming more and more common to see these notices stating that train doors will be closed 30 seconds, or a minute, or whatever, before departure.

This makes no sense to me.

What is the purpose of a timetable? It's to let you know when you need to be on the platform to catch your train. What's the point of publishing a departure time if you then inform passengers, when they show up at the station, that actually they need to be there a certain amount of time before what you've advertised in the timetable?

These advance door-closing times aren't even consistent across different stations and you can't know which stations apply them unless you are at the station, by which point it's probably too late.

If you want to close doors a bit ahead of the actual departure time, fair enough, but then you should simply advertise that time on the timetable.

Do you agree?

Err, no! Anyone who gets to the station at the time 'advertised' in the timetable is asking for trouble! the times quoted are the arrival and departure times, you need to get there at least 5 mins beofre that, in order to be ready to board the train.

The door closes 30 seconds before departure needs to be adopted throughout the railway, not 30 seconds here, 1 min there, and IS a good idea, the amount of trains that are delayed because someone has turned up at the last minute and is trying to get on must be into the hundreds every day, you only need a few of these 'lazy' passengers, and your train could be some 15 late at the other end of it's journey, and possible connections lost.

People moan about late running, 75% of the time it is the passengers that have made it late !

imagine Easyjet or Ryanair letting you on the plane at 'departure time' !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, that's not what I'm saying.

For an 1130 departure I think it's reasonable to expect to be able to turn up (at the platform) at 11.29.03 or 11.29.35. The point is, that depending on the train or the station, I may or may not be able to get on the train, and I have no way of knowing this in advance.

To be clear - this is a separate issue from me aiming to turn up at 11.29.35, and then missing the train because I get delayed by 30 seconds on the way there. That's a risk that I decide to take and it's my problem if I miss the train as a result. I don't expect the train to be held for me if I am running towards it at 11.29.59.

To repeat my earlier question, what is the downside of simply advertising the doors-closed time on the timetable? It would reduce confusion, and surely make things better for despatch staff too, because there is then no argument with passengers if they turn up after the advertised time (as opposed to turning up before the advertised time, and then being told that actually they are too late).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The difference is that you don't know the rule for your train until you turn up at the station.



That is of no relevance to what we're talking about here. My suggestion that doors-closed times are what is advertised would not make any trains run later. In fact I suspect it would improve punctuality for the reasons I've mentioned above.

If this is what you think, then you deserve to miss it! that is a stupidly short time! this would without doubt make the train late away.