Closing doors while people are boarding

[TimG]

Have you ever worked in a shop?

I do, and we have to shut the door in people's faces. When it is half past 6 and we closed at six, sorry, no, we have to go home. Yes people are peeved, but...

...if you want to go into a shop, or get on a train, turn up on time!

That's what it all boils down to, and other people* who are sensible and turn up on time should not have to pay for it.

*On a train, the passengers who turned up on time are getting later and later. In a shop, if we spend more money on wages keeping all the staff an hour later for one customer, the money has to be saved from other times! So the majority would lose out...

This is not about turning up on time. You could be 20 minutes early but if they only allow 1 minute when they need 3 to let people on it doesn't work!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Trains, for the most part, are leased. That means that every tick of the clock costs you money, but you only make money when they're in use. Hence you want your utilisation to be as high as possible.

Only if you don't care about customers but instead care about moving at least some fractional portion of train! Train companies don't care about moving people, they care about selling tickets and moving trains!

 

[EM2]

Obviously everyone has made good points.. you have to disadvantage someone in such situations..

Let me put it this way. I'd much rather be late by 5 to 10 minutes most of the time, but always be able to get on my intended train, than have a 10% chance of not being able to get on the train and always being on time. The main frustration with public transport is not journey times, but predictability.

But if your intended train is 5 to 10 minutes late, that won't be affecting just your train, but dozens of others too, meaning hundreds of people are inconvenienced.
Whereas if the train leaves on time, but some people are left behind, then only those few people are inconvenienced.

 

[NSEFAN]

Only if you don't care about customers but instead care about moving at least some fractional portion of train! Train companies don't care about moving people, they care about selling tickets and moving trains!

The railway is largely subsidised. As a result it is expected to run with the highest cost efficiency it can. Keeping spare stock just in case of delays is hence not the done thing anymore as most of the time you'd have trains sitting around doing nothing.

 

[The Planner]

This is not about turning up on time. You could be 20 minutes early but if they only allow 1 minute when they need 3 to let people on it doesn't work!

That's fine and perfectly valid in some cases, however, if you want to do that which trains do you want to take out of the timetable to make it work? Take the trains out and you make the existing ones more crowded even if you used the stock released to make the existing formations longer. It's all about about frequency and standardised timetables now on those sort of routes.

 

[hassaanhc]

The railway is largely subsidised. As a result it is expected to run with the highest cost efficiency it can. Keeping spare stock just in case of delays is hence not the done thing anymore as most of the time you'd have trains sitting around doing nothing.

And that's before you consider which locations you keep them at and how many at each location .

Similar thing happens with staff. There are only certain locations which are traincrew signing on/off points and/or traincrew break facilities. Majority of staff duties involve travelling as passenger at start/end of halves, so you could have crew take break at Waterloo then go to takeover next train at Woking. Moving them onto different diagrams at the time isn't an option as you have to balance legal (and recommended) maximum shift/driving hours and also length of breaks. That is before you look at the factors of paying spare staff to do nothing most of the time, how many to keep and what routes they sign.

 

[Manchester77]

Do they really keep NO spare stock? What the rationale for that? Surely the track is the expensive bit and the trains the cheap bit?

If TOCs have trains sat in sidings they get criticised for not utilising all the stock they lease, if they don't have spare trains they get criticised!

They will allocate stock for maintenance and spares however utilisation is very high, the 319s on FCC have a very high utilisation rate I think 81 out of the 86 were being used at one point (obviously it's less now since some are undergoing overhauls and 319361 is with Northern now) but you can see the point now that even with spares allocated it might only take one failure and they have to short form a service.

Not really since you pay track access charges as the train runs yet you have to pay leasing costs for rolling stock. The rolling stock leasing charges are higher than the track access charges.

 

[hassaanhc]

This blog, written by someone going by the name of "Honourless Weasel", has a couple of excellent pieces of the logistical challenges that affect the railway, with thorough explanations in plain English. It is about disruption after a Person Hit by Train incident but majority of things applicable almost everywhere

 

[najaB]

The railway is largely subsidised. As a result it is expected to run with the highest cost efficiency it can. Keeping spare stock just in case of delays is hence not the done thing anymore as most of the time you'd have trains sitting around doing nothing.

It's not even just subsidised industries that do this - look at airlines: they generally lease their airframes and try to have as high a utilisation as possible. In days gone by it took 30 minutes or more to turn a narrow body between flights, these days it's 15 minutes or less. A low cost carrier (think Ryan Air) will easily do seven or eight flights per aircraft per day, as compared to four or five for a legacy airline as the way to keep costs down is to work the fleet harder.

 

[TimG]

If TOCs have trains sat in sidings they get criticised for not utilising all the stock they lease, if they don't have spare trains they get criticised!

They will allocate stock for maintenance and spares however utilisation is very high, the 319s on FCC have a very high utilisation rate I think 81 out of the 86 were being used at one point (obviously it's less now since some are undergoing overhauls and 319361 is with Northern now) but you can see the point now that even with spares allocated it might only take one failure and they have to short form a service.

Not really since you pay track access charges as the train runs yet you have to pay leasing costs for rolling stock. The rolling stock leasing charges are higher than the track access charges.

I'm going off on a tangent, but this is interesting! If the above is true, my instinct tell me that the track access charges are too low, as the tack is the bottle neck on capacity and there is basically unlimited demand for rail travel in the the SE. How are track access charges decided? Do they very by time of day and route? Can I buy a slot? Are low track access charges a form of subsidy?

 

[Manchester77]

I'm going off on a tangent, but this is interesting! If the above is true, my instinct tell me that the track access charges are too low, as the tack is the bottle neck on capacity and there is basically unlimited demand for rail travel in the the SE. How are track access charges decided? Do they very by time of day and route? Can I buy a slot? Are low track access charges a form of subsidy?

Track access charges are how much a TOC is charged to run a particular train per mile. They don't determine capacity they're just about how much an operator pays to run a train along the track.

They're determined by the trains weight and if the train is an EMU the electricity is factored in too.

They don't vary based on external factors they're purely about the train and its characteristics.

Depends if you wanted to run a service between say Kings Cross and Peterborough for example you'd have to go at it as an open access operator like Grand Central and Hull Trains. You'd need to submit a formal plan to the ORR with your timetable etc. you'd also need to find the paths for you service. The ORR would the authorise your service or decline it and in the example I've used it would almost certainly be declined because it would abstract revenue from the franchised operators hence why the open access operators don't stop at 'key' ECML stations because the ORR decided too much revenue would be lost from East Coast.

No they're usually just network rail saying that this train doesn't put much wear on the track.

 

[Class83]

Presumably in this situation there was another train to the same destinations as the train where the doors were being closed within 10 minutes or so? If so I can understand the operational reasons for doing so, the tube simply wouldn't work if they didn't do this.

However, if the service was half hourly or less then as a passenger I'd be less than pleased if they didn't allow all passengers who were on the platform when the train arrived to board.

 

[route:oxford]

Just as an afterthought to the original posting.

If the train had arrived and most doors opened at the same time for disembarkation. Wouldn't the auto-close (to help the aircon) function also commence for each door at approximately the same time?

 

[plymothian]

You get this on the buses every day, only compounded by the fact people have to pay on boarding.

Bus is due to leave at say 13:00, it's been sat there for 10 minutes.
At 12:59, someone turns up and takes time to pay/find their pass. It's now 13:00 - time to go, but someone else has turned up.
13:00:30, an old dear has now jammed her walking stick in the doors and slowly gets on board.
13:02, a family has now arrived with a buggy meaning the mobility walkers and shopping trollies have to be rearranged and the kids want to sit up stairs.
13:04, people have started arriving for the next departure and want to get on ("just made it driver")
13:05 the bus has now been blocked in and can't get off the stop.

etc.

There will never be enough time to cater for everyone; you could wait all day, and there will always be someone else.

 

[hassaanhc]

Just as an afterthought to the original posting.

If the train had arrived and most doors opened at the same time for disembarkation. Wouldn't the auto-close (to help the aircon) function also commence for each door at approximately the same time?

Desiros have sensors which reset the countdown every time someone boards or alights. Electrostars should do too but don't recall it working once on a Southern one. So this method would not be reliable.

At times I feel dispatchers could be a bit more enthusiastic and firm in their tone of voice to get people to hurry up, doesn't help that they don't get wireless microphones that LUL dispatchers do. Shame they have to be careful in what they say in order to prevent complaints :P

 

[Holly]

And just get later and later and later? I'm sure the passengers waiting at East Croydon and beyond would really appreciate that, plus all the passengers on the trains stacking behind and their passengers waiting further down the line.

Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned but how about an electronic sign asking people to do the right thing.

"The train is overcrowded, please do not board but instead wait for the next train in x minutes".

I don't find any excuse for closing the doors on people trying to board without giving them good warning about what is likely to happen. In an absence of information, I would hope some gallant young man would block the door with his foot and stop it from closing so an old lady could board safely and unhurriedly.

 

[Minilad]

Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned but how about an electronic sign asking people to do the right thing.

"The train is overcrowded, please do not board but instead wait for the next train in x minutes".

I don't find any excuse for closing the doors on people trying to board without giving them good warning about what is likely to happen. In an absence of information, I would hope some gallant young man would block the door with his foot and stop it from closing so an old lady could board safely and unhurriedly.

Asking London commuters to do the right thing ?
Good luck with that!

I'm sure everyone would be most appreciative when the guy blocking the door causes it to malfunction and the train has to be taken out of service or the carriage locked out of use

 

[EM2]

Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned but how about an electronic sign asking people to do the right thing.

"The train is overcrowded, please do not board but instead wait for the next train in x minutes".

I don't find any excuse for closing the doors on people trying to board without giving them good warning about what is likely to happen. In an absence of information, I would hope some gallant young man would block the door with his foot and stop it from closing so an old lady could board safely and unhurriedly.

In effect, that's what the hustle alarm does.

 

[306024]

.........Majority of staff duties involve travelling as passenger at start/end of halves........

They may do in your neck of the woods, that is not always the case everywhere.

I'm sure everyone would be most appreciative when the guy blocking the door causes it to malfunction and the train has to be taken out of service or the carriage locked out of use

Seen that happen with an 8 car 315 at Stratford in the evening peak. Train out of service due to 'disruptive passengers'.

 

[muz379]

They would likely be in trouble in the event of something happening due to (or being made worse by) the carriages being over-full. For example, if a child got crushed or if there was a fire and it wasn't possible to evacuate the train in time.
I'm not so sure that's correct, but even if there isn't a legal limit, there is a design loading. Exceeding that loading wouldn't be advisable.And that is more likely to happen the longer they stay at the platform, letting more and more people board. If passengers know that the train won't wait for a long time, they are less likely to try to squeeze on.

Trains run heavilly congested every day , are you suggesting that every day drivers on DOO and guards are taking a gamble that something might happen and they might get in trouble .

I know for a fact as a guard I have not been briefed on any legal limits as to train capacity wheras i know for a fact aircraft and busses are only licensed to carry a particular number of people .Nor have I been briefed in any way regarding when a train is considered overcrowded and when I should not take a train because it is too full, if I as a guard have not been briefed on this I can not then be held accountable if an accident occurred and evacuation or dealing with the emergency was a problem due to overcrowding .

I know myself there would come a point when I would have to tell passengers to stop boarding but this would merely because the train is full and cannot hold anymore not because of any legal or otherwise limit I have been instructed as to .


I agree with your point though about passengers knowing that if the trains only stop for say 1 minute then they will become familiar with the idea that they only have one minute to board ,If this was going to work it would only work on a high volume commuter service where passengers have another service to take them to the same place in 5 or so minutes . Not being familiar with FCC I am not aware if this is the case here .

I dont think this will stop people trying to crush on though , if anything it will make the situation worse because everyone will try and get on before passengers leaving the train have even had a chance to get off . The same reason passengers try and get as close to the train as possible when it is coming to a stand in the platform , because they want a seat or want to guarantee they get on .

 

[bunnahabhain]

FCC seems to be under the impression that they are in the business of selling tickets and moving trains.. they are not. They are in the business of transporting people!

My train on Friday was half the usual length. This in itself isn't really excusable. (spare trains anyone?), but not the end of the world.

What isn't excusable is that the train closed the doors while people were still trying to board. There was plenty of space, just congestion as people needed to move down the carriages. Inevitably this means that it will take longer for the train to be boarded.

In no other industry would such blatant disregard for your customers be acceptable! Crazy

It depends upon your viewpoint, if you arrive shortformed do you wait for everybody to get onboard, even if not everybody can get on, bearing in mind more people will be arriving constantly, or do you shut the doors and go in the knowledge that the next train won't be too far behind?

Sometimes you have to make the hard decision to shut the doors and go, usually with twenty to thirty people screaming in your face.

 

[yorkie]

I saw this at Vauxhall. We had used one set of doors to board a nearly empty train to Wimbledon. ....

How many people is "we"?

If it's a case of loads of people insisting on using one door, and with other doors not being used, then it seems unreasonable to expect the train to continue waiting.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned but how about an electronic sign asking people to do the right thing.

"The train is overcrowded, please do not board but instead wait for the next train in x minutes".

I don't find any excuse for closing the doors on people trying to board without giving them good warning about what is likely to happen. In an absence of information, I would hope some gallant young man would block the door with his foot and stop it from closing so an old lady could board safely and unhurriedly.

Adding weight to points already made, but firstly people will always try to get onto an overcrowded train, even if there is a completely empty one behind which arrives five minutes behind the overcrowded one people will cram on in. I guess it's human nature, but short of physically restraining people you will never stop it.
Secondly there is an alarm which beeps then the doors are about to close, be it automatically by sensors or manually closed and locked by a member of train crew. That serves as fair warning. Like a lot of threads on this forum, this entire topic proves that is literally impossible to please all the people all the time.

 

[yorkie]

They would likely be in trouble in the event of something happening due to (or being made worse by) the carriages being over-full.

I strongly disagree
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What isn't excusable is that the train closed the doors while people were still trying to board....

It really depends on the frequency, and exact circumstances.

Of the 8 sets of doors on the train, how many were still boarding?

Do you think there is a possibility that most of the passengers would prefer the train departed when it did, compared to departing later, and being put behind the 1630 LBG-HRH? If you'd departed even 30 seconds later, the chances are the signallers would have put that train in front, and you'd have therefore been 10-11 minutes late into East Croydon, where you'd have been put behind the 1636 VIC-BTN.

 

[neilm]

Interesting that people have said they should wait for the next one, but there is only one more fcc train and then there is a 2 hour gap, I am not surprised fcc ticket Holders forced themselves on this train...

 

[BestWestern]

They would likely be in trouble in the event of something happening due to (or being made worse by) the carriages being over-full. For example, if a child got crushed or if there was a fire and it wasn't possible to evacuate the train in time.

.....even if there isn't a legal limit, there is a design loading. Exceeding that loading wouldn't be advisable.

Just not the case . There is no limit, legal or otherwise, on how many passengers can be accomodated in a carriage. The maximum load bearing capabilities of the vehicle will go well beyond the weight that would ever be placed upon it by it being full to capacity with passengers.

No staff member is charged with policing the number of passengers boarding a train, and it is very, very highly unlikely that any staff member will ever be held responsible for an incident based on how many passengers they had 'allowed' to board. It is physically impossible to restrict the numbers joining a long train at a busy station, unless you have a very large team of staff, and are willing to tolerate enormous levels of delay and conflict. It simply doesn't happen, for fairly obvious reasons, and it sure as hell isn't something the Driver or Guard are expected to control. Consider how the London Underground would function if trains were unable to operate full and standing?!

 

[DelayRepay]

Adding weight to points already made, but firstly people will always try to get onto an overcrowded train, even if there is a completely empty one behind which arrives five minutes behind the overcrowded one people will cram on in. I guess it's human nature, but short of physically restraining people you will never stop it.

I use FCC between City Thameslink and St Albans every day. I think we have a higher frequency of trains than on the section of route being discussed, but if a train is short formed, or running late and over crowded, I always stand back and wait for the next one. I'd much rather be 10 minutes later getting home but get a seat or at least not be squashed up against someone else's armpit if I have to stand!

It does surprise me how people push and shove to get on when on this route there will normally be another train just a few minutes behind.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It looks like occasionally drivers (I think more likely station staff) have had to push doors shut.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1865131&postcount=2

 

[drbdrb]

I have been caught a couple of times in this situation with tube trains.

Train arrives at somewhere like King's Cross, where a lot of people want to get off. Stand back "to let passengers off before boarding", and then before you get a chance to get into the empty carriage that 50 people got out of, the person that told you to wait is now signalling for the doors to be closed!

Since exactly the same thing will happen with the next train, the only solution is to push on as soon as the train arrives.

 

[TimG]

I strongly disagree
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It really depends on the frequency, and exact circumstances.

Of the 8 sets of doors on the train, how many were still boarding?

Do you think there is a possibility that most of the passengers would prefer the train departed when it did, compared to departing later, and being put behind the 1630 LBG-HRH? If you'd departed even 30 seconds later, the chances are the signallers would have put that train in front, and you'd have therefore been 10-11 minutes late into East Croydon, where you'd have been put behind the 1636 VIC-BTN.

Not that it really matters.. But in this case I don't think that is true. It's at least four track all the way to East Croydon with what appears to be plenty of capacity. This will be utilised by Thames link upgrade.

 

[Minstral25]

On lines I use this happens with frequency but the trains are 15 or 30 minutes apart. Thus to get on the train becomes more important as daily delay of 15/30 minutes daily is a lot out of my life in the long run.

I try to work out where I guess the train is going to be less full so I can get on, but no such advice is given to passengers up front and is a total waste of time on the WLL as these trains in the peak are overcrowded throughout but still often 15 minutes apart. For me on the WLL only every second train connects at Clapham Junction with my next service so not getting on one train delays me for 30 minutes.

So I understand why sometimes passengers are concerned to get their train. Better advice on the platform before the train comes in would be helpful. Stating passengers should get on empty carriages on the other end of the train doesn't help if they are not advised beforehand as are you going to delay a train further whilst the passengers walk up the train.

Solutions would be longer trains in many cases for the services I catch but this doesn't happen as leasing costs and track access charges means TOC's prefer shorter trains. There needs to be tougher penalties in franchises for overcrowded trains and terminal platform access charges for short trains to equal this out.

I live on highly stretched infrastructure and hence am unlikely to see more trains on my line.