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

[90019]

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

Clearly, you don't.

You seem quite happy to delay all the passengers who arrived in good time to board the train just so that you can turn up at the last minute.

 

[Greenback]

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

I think there are several consequences of altering the departure time in the PTT. The first one is the extended journey times that I have already mentioned, and which The Planner has provided figures for to illustrate the drop in revenue. However, there is also a further consequence - journey planners will need to be reprogrammed, and connectional allowances increased at every major interchange to allow for the earlier departures. Otherwise connections that are currently official will not be, and some journeys involvign a change of train will become an hour or more longer.

I can imagine the efect that will have on both regular travellers, and those planning a journey and considering rail. The chances are that a lot of them will go by coach or car.

I can also imagine that if timetables show a time as the last time that a passenger can board, then that is the time that the doors will be closed and locked. So, whereas trains over the last two days have locked the doors 7-15 seconds before leaving, they could, in future, be locked a full minute before. This would prevent people arriving 35 or 40 seconds (even 20 seconds in some cases) from boarding, unlike now, where they do get on.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to see a situation where ATOC introduces Timetable Simplification where all operators show their departure times as two minutes before the train actuall leaves. I can see the ATOC press release now:

'Our customers tell us they want to know what is the latest time that can be guaranteed to board the train before departure. Our new policy will ensure that this information is clear and available to all through the timetable. In order to ensure punctual departure of all services, and consistency across the network, this time has been standardised as two minutes across all services'

Or maybe I am just a bit too cynical?!

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.

I agree that the the information should be in the timetable, but only in the form of a notice, rather than changing the times. I was both surprised and disappointed to see that ATW's timetables don;t have any mention at all of the door closing policy, despite having instructions on how to get on and off the train at request stops.

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.

That would depend hugely on the form of the question. You could ask it in such a way as to ensure a high level of support, someone else could word it to ensure a very low level of support! It's what happens in surveys all the 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.

I disagree. I think that an explanation of why doors need to be closed and locked, their place in the despatch process, and the length of time it takes is very relevant.

We are all human, and it's not just rail staff who are annoyed by passengers jumping on to a train at the last possible second. I am annoyed myself, when someone prevents doors closing so that their friend can stroll down the platform carrying a coffee. Unless I am late myself of course, in which case it's OK to try it! Hypocrisy, that's human nature too I suppose!

 

[BRX]

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.

No, they come back on after two or three minutes, station stop or not.

If they have to actively stop people turning them all off then doesn't that say something about how much people like them!?

 

[90019]

That would depend hugely on the form of the question. You could ask it in such a way as to ensure a high level of support, someone else could word it to ensure a very low level of support! It's what happens in surveys all the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgyKpkLpccE

 

[BRX]

I think there are several consequences of altering the departure time in the PTT. The first one is the extended journey times that I have already mentioned, and which The Planner has provided figures for to illustrate the drop in revenue. However, there is also a further consequence - journey planners will need to be reprogrammed, and connectional allowances increased at every major interchange to allow for the earlier departures. Otherwise connections that are currently official will not be, and some journeys involvign a change of train will become an hour or more longer.

I don't really believe that the extension in apparent journey times would be much of an issue. The planner hasn't given enough details of the particular instance he was talking about to judge that situation.

And, no, journey planners won't have to be reprogrammed! If the journey planner currently allows a 5 minute connection to a service that closes its doors 1 minute early, then it is allowing a four minute connection time and that has been judged to be sufficient. So, if the passenger timetable is changed to show the departure (in reality doors closed time) 1 minute earlier, there is still a 4 minute connection time. That's the whole point! Nothing actually changes, except the way the information is conveyed to the passenger.

I can also imagine that if timetables show a time as the last time that a passenger can board, then that is the time that the doors will be closed and locked. So, whereas trains over the last two days have locked the doors 7-15 seconds before leaving, they could, in future, be locked a full minute before. This would prevent people arriving 35 or 40 seconds (even 20 seconds in some cases) from boarding, unlike now, where they do get on.

No, the time shown in the PTT will be the time needed to close the doors for that particular service. If a service only needs 15 seconds, then that's what the PTT can show. Again that's the point; you can have different margins for different trains without the passenger having to worry about it.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to see a situation where ATOC introduces Timetable Simplification where all operators show their departure times as two minutes before the train actuall leaves. I can see the ATOC press release now:

'Our customers tell us they want to know what is the latest time that can be guaranteed to board the train before departure. Our new policy will ensure that this information is clear and available to all through the timetable. In order to ensure punctual departure of all services, and consistency across the network, this time has been standardised as two minutes across all services'

Or maybe I am just a bit too cynical?!

Wouldn't be surprised if they did something like that, but that's not what I'm suggesting.

We are all human, and it's not just rail staff who are annoyed by passengers jumping on to a train at the last possible second. I am annoyed myself, when someone prevents doors closing so that their friend can stroll down the platform carrying a coffee.

Same here but this is irrelevant to the discussion! How does what I'm suggesting make this any more likely than at present? Excuse me while I go and bang my head against a brick wall.

 

[Greenback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgyKpkLpccE

I might have known someone would have posted that!

I don't really believe that the extension in apparent journey times would be much of an issue. The planner hasn't given enough details of the particular instance he was talking about to judge that situation.

That's your prerogative of course.

I have no reason to believe that what ThePlanner says isn't true, but even if it was hypothetical, it is believeable.

And, no, journey planners won't have to be reprogrammed! If the journey planner currently allows a 5 minute connection to a service that closes its doors 1 minute early, then it is allowing a four minute connection time and that has been judged to be sufficient. So, if the passenger timetable is changed to show the departure (in reality doors closed time) 1 minute earlier, there is still a 4 minute connection time. That's the whole point! Nothing actually changes, except the way the information is conveyed to the passenger.

I don't follow, sorry. I think you are possibly msising out the existence of the minimum connection times at large stations. Take a station that has 7 minute connectional allowance. At the moment, a train that arrives at 1635 officialyl conencts with one departing at 1642. Journey planners therefore show this as a journey option.

If the departure time of the second train is brought forward in the timetable to 1641, as this is the time that passengers must be on board so that the doors are locked, the conenction is lost. This means that the journey planner now shows the next train as the connecting service. This may be 30 minutes or an hour later.

I don;t think that counts as nothing changes!

No, the time shown in the PTT will be the time needed to close the doors for that particular service. If a service only needs 15 seconds, then that's what the PTT can show. Again that's the point; you can have different margins for different trains without the passenger having to worry about it.

So you want the PTT to show seconds as well as hours and minutes?

Wouldn't be surprised if they did something like that, but that's not what I'm suggesting.

Well, it's entirely possible that's where the suggestion will lead us.

Same here but this is irrelevant to the discussion! How does what I'm suggesting make this any more likely than at present? Excuse me while I go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Your suggestion doesn't make it any more likely. But it doesn't make it any less likely either.

I can say no more really, than to again point out that there are consequences to what might appear to be a simple and straightforward solution to a problem that is at worst a minor iritant to a relatively small number of people.

These consequences are potentially costly for the industry, and would benefit only very small numbers of travellers. That's not to say the present system is perfect, or that improvements can't be made to the provision of information before passengers arrive at the station, but it is better than changing departure times to door closing times, and introducing seconds nto the equation.

 

[tony_mac]

I don't follow, sorry. I think you are possibly msising out the existence of the minimum connection times at large stations. Take a station that has 7 minute connectional allowance. At the moment, a train that arrives at 1635 officialyl conencts with one departing at 1642. Journey planners therefore show this as a journey option.
...
I don;t think that counts as nothing changes!

Ok, the minimum connection times would also change - that would still be less trouble than having posters all around the country giving information about when the doors may close.

The minimum connection time is 7 minutes, but you may only actually have 5 minutes to make the connection as the doors may close 2 minutes early.

What about the train at 16:41 that actually closes the door a few seconds before departure? That would currently not be shown as a connection yet you have more time to make the connection than the 16:42 that closes at 16:40.

Wouldn't it be better if the minimum connection time was 5 minutes, and you would know that was always 5 minutes to make the connection, rather than being told 7 when it is actually 5,6, or 7?

 

[The Planner]

I don't really believe that the extension in apparent journey times would be much of an issue. The planner hasn't given enough details of the particular instance he was talking about to judge that situation.

It was regarding Nottingham to Birmingham services, an idea to throw them down the Castle Donnington line avoiding Derby to get a sub hour journey time was tried a good while back. It couldnt be made to work, but the difference in time would have gained that amount per day.

No, the time shown in the PTT will be the time needed to close the doors for that particular service. If a service only needs 15 seconds, then that's what the PTT can show. Again that's the point; you can have different margins for different trains without the passenger having to worry about it.

Is the suggestion that the PTT shows times other than whole minutes ?? if so, that is a non-starter and will get nowhere. Only the WTT can show ½ minutes.

 

[Greenback]

Perhaps the best thing would be if no trains closed doors two minutes before departure. I think I'd be very annoyed if I missed a train because the doors were locked that early.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

It was regarding Nottingham to Birmingham services, an idea to throw them down the Castle Donnington line avoiding Derby to get a sub hour journey time was tried a good while back. It couldnt be made to work, but the difference in time would have gained that amount per day.

I don't think it be considered "fact" that it would have gained that amount of money per day. Just because somoene tells you they would travel if it was 59minutes doesn't meant they actually would. A long term study would have to be done of before and after figures, stip out any variable such as the economy, fare rises, congestion, and the cost of motoring, and then decide if it's made such a difference or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Otherwise connections that are currently official will not be, and some journeys involvign a change of train will become an hour or more longer.

But if doors are being closed early, then they are already getting less than official connection time. I wonder if the TOC would entertain a claim from a passenger who had an official connection and was on the platform before departure time but found their train was locked?

Besides, you only have to change the tiny tiny minority of trains where 30 seconds makes a difference to their pathing. Very few trains have such tight conflicts.

 

[The Planner]

I don't think it be considered "fact" that it would have gained that amount of money per day. Just because somoene tells you they would travel if it was 59minutes doesn't meant they actually would. A long term study would have to be done of before and after figures, stip out any variable such as the economy, fare rises, congestion, and the cost of motoring, and then decide if it's made such a difference or not.

I have no idea if it would, but considering the details came from the TOC themselves then I'd have thought they would have done some sort of research and have some statistical models for it, if not, how can anyone forecast revenue expectations ??

 

[EM2]

Perhaps the best thing would be if no trains closed doors two minutes before departure. I think I'd be very annoyed if I missed a train because the doors were locked that early.

Isn't it normally platform barriers that are closed two minutes before? The reason being that it gives those on the platform enough time to board at the correct coach, get the doors locked and pulll away on time?

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

I have no idea if it would, but considering the details came from the TOC themselves then I'd have thought they would have done some sort of research and have some statistical models for it, if not, how can anyone forecast revenue expectations ??

Well, for one thing forecasts are notoriously unreliable. There would be several ways of doing it. You could conduct a survey, but then the huge variable would be the question, and would people be honest? If the question was "would you consider travelling to Birmingham by train if it was less than an hour?". Many people would say "yes", then they would consider the cost, and think "no". I've considered joining the circus, but I've never yet walked the tightrope.

Another way of doing it would be "Virgin increased their passenger numbers by 20% with a 20 minute reduction in journey time, therefore we could increase our revenue by 1% if we reduced it by 1 minute. (Yes I know the maths and the figures are wrong but it's not important for now). But wait, Virgin's passenger numbers grew a time when the economy was growing. How much of the extra passengers are their because of an expanded economy?

Just ask yourself though, would 1 minute different make any difference to your journey plans? I can't believe that any sensible, rational person would. So much vitriol has been directed to passengers who turn up within a minute of departure saying they shouldn't leave it until the last minute, that you can't then turn round and say a minutes time saving makes any difference to anyone's life.

If for marketing reasons you want to shout about a "sub 1 hour journey", the way to do it is to have one train with one minutes less recovery time and use that as the basis that it can be done in less than an hour.

 

[mumrar]

Why does this always manage to generate such a high quantity of posts? A policy exists, as a passenger you don't automatically gain the right to question this policy, nobody cares whether you agree with it or not quite frankly either. I'm just glad all these last second chancers no longer have a chance to board a moving slam door train. If you can't organise and manage your time properly, than you're an embarrassment to yourself as an adult to be honest.

 

[Oswyntail]

..... If you can't organise and manage your time properly, than you're an embarrassment to yourself as an adult to be honest.

And that is just the problem. It is apparently OK for a TOC to be flexible in its timing approach (closing doors before time when there is a workable alternative) but not the customers. And it is this prevalent attitude of "the customers are idiots who get in the way of us running a railway properly" that is so irritating when one comes across it on this board that generates the heat of the argument.

 

[mumrar]

And that is just the problem. It is apparently OK for a TOC to be flexible in its timing approach (closing doors before time when there is a workable alternative) but not the customers. And it is this prevalent attitude of "the customers are idiots who get in the way of us running a railway properly" that is so irritating when one comes across it on this board that generates the heat of the argument.

But it isn't that at all. Are you suggesting before any train leaves a station we should check with all of the regulars that they're on board and wait if they've suffered a delay. The reason the door close time varies is because of the different stock. Compare the scenarios below.

#1 2 car 170 at New Street, arrived at 16:24 to form the 16:30 Cardiff. The initial rush of passengers is clear, and the doors have automatically closed by the sensor beam. To receive the first tip, lock the doors, receive the second tip and then get the RA will take 10 seconds at most.

#2 8 car double Voyager set. Train has arrived at New Street punctually for departure, everyone is on board who was waiting. The train doors remain open, to receive the first tip, buzz the driver, get the buzz back, watch doors close, get second tip, close local door and then get the RA takes around 3 times as long.

Things will vary, it can't be helped.

Airlines and boats close their doors in advance of departure time, and it would require a special kind of fool to expect anything else, so why should it be any different on the railway? I don't agree with flexibility or discretion here either, as most of those just missing the train either have a fresh hot drink, food or newspaper in their hands. People in general need to get a sense of responsibility in their life about their own actions and decisions. Nobody will walk you through it and take account for what you do.

 

[Oswyntail]

I agree that flexibility is (generally) unworkable and undesirable. (On a side track, unless there are pathing issues, I would suggest that holding an hourly service to a branch line off a main station to keep a connection with a late-running IC is all the sort of flexibility needed). What I would ask for, though, is certainty: that the departure time in the timetable is the times at which the doors are closed; that notices saying "doors may be closed up to three minutes in advance of departure time" are unhelpful, unnecessary and giving flexibility to the TOCs they do not need or require; that connection times at large stations are amended, if the flexible door-closing regime is retained. This certainty can be achieved with timetabling. Sure, there are idiots who will always turn up at the last moment and expect to be allowed to board (wheelchair man at Leeds in the 90s for instance), but so long as the published time for departure is the time at which doors are closed there is no problem.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Why does this always manage to generate such a high quantity of posts? A policy exists, as a passenger you don't automatically gain the right to question this policy, nobody cares whether you agree with it or not quite frankly either. I'm just glad all these last second chancers no longer have a chance to board a moving slam door train. If you can't organise and manage your time properly, than you're an embarrassment to yourself as an adult to be honest.

The London Underground seems to work reasonably well despite having a constant stream of passengers, so it is possible.

As for your last comment, well, it would be wonderful to live in your world where nothing ever goes wrong, but the rest of us live in a world where unavoiable circumstances sometimes transpire against even the most orgnaised of us. I once left my hotel on Park Lane with AN HOUR to get Marylebourne, which is what, a mile? I was going to walk but then we had bags and saw a bus stop that said buses every 7-8 minutes to outside the station. One bus of the number we wanted left just as we worked out which was best, and then none of the number we wanted showed for well over half an hour. After about 40-45 minutes we decided to get a bus that only went as far as Marylebourne Road. In the end we dived on to the train with seconds to spare. It would have been about 2 hours for another one as we were used it instead of the WCML which was shut.

How long would you give for a mile's bus journey with buses every 7-8 minutes? 2 hours? 3 hours? Camp out overnight?

 

[Darandio]

The London Underground seems to work reasonably well despite having a constant stream of passengers, so it is possible.

As for your last comment, well, it would be wonderful to live in your world where nothing ever goes wrong, but the rest of us live in a world where unavoiable circumstances sometimes transpire against even the most orgnaised of us. I once left my hotel on Park Lane with AN HOUR to get Marylebourne, which is what, a mile? I was going to walk but then we had bags and saw a bus stop that said buses every 7-8 minutes to outside the station. One bus of the number we wanted left just as we worked out which was best, and then none of the number we wanted showed for well over half an hour. After about 40-45 minutes we decided to get a bus that only went as far as Marylebourne Road. In the end we dived on to the train with seconds to spare. It would have been about 2 hours for another one as we were used it instead of the WCML which was shut.

How long would you give for a mile's bus journey with buses every 7-8 minutes? 2 hours? 3 hours? Camp out overnight?

Very rare and extreme circumstances though, don't you agree? But yes, lets change the system (not broken mind you!) just for the unfortunate few.

I understand what you mean, but at the same time, you surely can see that mumrar is referring to those who purposely arrive practically on departure, not those who were genuinely left in a pickle like yourself.

It seems that although 99.9% of people can and will get to the station of departure in a perfectly reasonable time, because certain people simply won't do it, then the whole system is wrong and needs to change.

 

[Nonsense]

Airlines and boats close their doors in advance of departure time, and it would require a special kind of fool to expect anything else, so why should it be any different on the railway? I don't agree with flexibility or discretion here either, as most of those just missing the train either have a fresh hot drink, food or newspaper in their hands. People in general need to get a sense of responsibility in their life about their own actions and decisions. Nobody will walk you through it and take account for what you do.

Sometimes. You can really feel the love on this site, its almost as though some members have never ever met a single decent human being to counteract that hatred toward others. Buying a coffee and a paper isn't the mark of the irresponsible for goodness sake.

30 seconds is not just missing the train either. In that time you could find a bench, open the newspaper and take a few gulps of your coffee, long before that train you've 'just' missed pulls out of the station.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Very rare and extreme circumstances though, don't you agree? But yes, lets change the system (not broken mind you!) just for the unfortunate few.

But the system has been changed, it wasn't always like it is now. It's been changed because a desperate industry is clutching at every last staw to increase performance figures. A train that shuts its doors at xx.xx.00 and departs at 00.00.30 WILL arrive on time unless there is a failure on the part of the industry. Why should customers have to suffer a worse service because we have reliability issues?

I understand what you mean, but at the same time, you surely can see that mumrar is referring to those who purposely arrive practically on departure, not those who were genuinely left in a pickle like yourself.

I don't believe there are that many people who DELIBRATELY get to a platform with less than 30 seconds to spare. Fair enough some people will only have themselves to blame, but I would say an equal number have been let down by other forms of transport, or despite their best efforts, life has got in the way.

I just don't agree that there are loads of people sat around going "meh, I'll set off in a bit". Most people do aim to get their early. But there is a limit to how much redundancy one is expected to build into their schedule.

 

[Nonsense]

It seems that although 99.9% of people can and will get to the station of departure in a perfectly reasonable time, because certain people simply won't do it, then the whole system is wrong and needs to change.

How can you be sure that 99.9% of people at the station didn't 'just' miss the earlier train and were therefore early for the next one by default?

 

[Darandio]

How can you be sure otherwise?

 

[BRX]

It was regarding Nottingham to Birmingham services, an idea to throw them down the Castle Donnington line avoiding Derby to get a sub hour journey time was tried a good while back. It couldnt be made to work, but the difference in time would have gained that amount per day.

So, we're not actually talking about a real situation then - somebody's prediction, who may or may not have had an interest in predicting a certain outcome.

If apparent journey times are really so critical to revenue, then it's kind of surprising that operators are so keen to pad out the final (passenger timetable) arrival times of services to build in "recovery time". This can be as much 5 or 10 minutes in many instances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

#1 2 car 170 at New Street, arrived at 16:24 to form the 16:30 Cardiff. The initial rush of passengers is clear, and the doors have automatically closed by the sensor beam. To receive the first tip, lock the doors, receive the second tip and then get the RA will take 10 seconds at most.

#2 8 car double Voyager set. Train has arrived at New Street punctually for departure, everyone is on board who was waiting. The train doors remain open, to receive the first tip, buzz the driver, get the buzz back, watch doors close, get second tip, close local door and then get the RA takes around 3 times as long.

So are you saying it takes around 30 seconds to dispatch a Voyager?

 

[Nonsense]

How can you be sure otherwise?

I can't, but I'm not making that assumption. You can't be certain that those 'just missing' the train aren't just arriving incredibly early for the next one either.

What is certain though, is that you can ascertain nothing about an individual's character by their ability to catch a train.

 

[mumrar]

BRX whilst that may not be an exact figure, I can assure you it is certainly in that region. Then contrast that with an East Coast 9 coach HST with slam doors left open, that can take an age to depart. There isn't the consistency to make an arbitrary figure nationally.

As to the claims of 'life gets in the way', it's all about making allowances. If I start work at xx.06 or xx:08 I won't travel on the xx:03 arrival and will instead catch the xx:33 arrival, making me 35 mins early for work, but I'd sooner that than lose my job. Similarly, I often cycle in to work. My average journey is 45mins from door to door. I leave home 1hr30 before starting work, to allow for a puncture, a breather, a divert to a station if I pull something. The other day it took just over 41mins and so I had 49mins for a shower before my start time. It IS easily possible to make these time allowances in life, it's just that others won't and will then go all Victor Meldrew on you instead.

 

[Barrett M95]

Clearly a train locked and ready for RA 2 minutes (as someone said somewhere I think) before departure is going to **** off a number of "late" arriving passengers - but if you are physically on the platform a minute or 2 minutes before departure, standing right next to the bloody door, then you are, by definition not late for the train and the act of getting into it - even with a generous luggage allowance - would only take, what? 10-15 seconds? Faced with that situation, yes the TOC seems inflexible, and blind to the concept of serving passengers that have kept their side of the agreement by paying and turning up on time. Even a minute before seems stupid. If they arrived bang on departure time and the doors shut in their face - fine. They can't complain - the railway has kept their side of the deal. 30 seconds before departure (as the thread title is) - well, to be honest that doesn't seem SO unreasonable does it? Mind you with so much slack in timetables at the moment, any few seconds lost there will be made up later.

In my 30+ years of using trains I think I have been "delayed" by mere seconds on only a handful of occasions by late passengers - and even then it has been because they are disabled, elderly or have excessive luggage and need help. They could have left with plenty of time to spare and been delayed by circumstances out of their control. The last thing they need when they're stressed and already having a bad day is some pompous railway jobsworth closing the door on their face just to sit there for another 60 seconds.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

As to the claims of 'life gets in the way', it's all about making allowances.

But where do you draw the line? Like I say I thought an hour to get from Park Lane to Marylebone, a distance of no more than a mile, would have been perfectly adequate. But through circumstances I couldn't reasonably be expected to forsee (an advertised bus service frequency of 7-8 mins not turning up after 40) I could have had to wait 2 hours, had the doors shut early. Thankfully, they didn't, and amazingly the train still arrived in Birmingham on time.

Perhaps you may wish not to see the worst in everybody and perhaps be a little more charitable? Most people aren't arrogantly trying to delay trains because they are too important, they are just people like you and me who sometimes through no fault of their own, get caught out.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The departure time is in the timetable, the train doors have to be shut before the train can leave, therefore the train doors will shut before the departure time. Hardly rocket science.

However because people were seemingly unable to account for this on a daily basis, TOCs started putting up signs to say train doors will shut or platform barriers will be closed before the departure time.

When I worked for Thameslink, the guidance was that train door closing procedures begin ten seconds before departure, allowing 3-7 seconds for the hustle alarm and 3-7 seconds for the door to close, but even then there were complaints of trains leaving 3 seconds early (I kid you not!).

 

[jon0844]

No, they come back on after two or three minutes, station stop or not.

If they have to actively stop people turning them all off then doesn't that say something about how much people like them!?

I didn't use mine, as I had my laptop. However, I might use one another time. No, almost certainly would if I didn't intend to do any work/surfing.

In fact, I went to Bath today but opted to drive in the end! Had I taken the train, I'd have headed into coach D on the way back as I could have relaxed and started to wind down (instead of driving for 2.5 hours!).

The feedback was really good on the service I was on that day (as in you could hear people commenting on the fact that the train even HAD screens, then the films they wanted to watch), given the fact the movies were free. The screens have been there a while, but with new content, it's like being on a plane. Go on a long haul flight and nearly everyone will use it at some point.

I accept the screens coming back on is a bit of a pain (on a plane, it's somewhat different) and maybe they could address this by having it come on at a very low brightness, or have an illuminated power button so people could manually enable the screens. However, they need to make money or there's no incentive to install more.

Personal screens with pause/forward/rewind are far better than fixed screens, as had been planned for many TOCs (and trialled on some) 5-6 years ago. Even FCC was going to install those, but that never happened.