Connection nonsenses

[Purple Train]

Delay repayment doesn't come close to compensating you for the time you should have had to yourself. It is a gesture, nothing more.

Indeed, and I can only remember one time when I was on a train where the availability of compensation given how late the train was was announced by the guard. I don't really think anyone cares about it at all - on the train in question, even the PIS was trying to ram a Duran Duran advert down our throats instead of sensible information like the connections at Sheffield (which is not beyond the wit of computer, it gave us the "connections" at the likes of Kiveton Park and Darnall)!

 

[bob007]

The former Station Manager in me keeps coming back to the fact that you can never actually hold a connection 'for a few seconds'. The issue isn't the Olympic sprinter wearing trainers who's waiting at the door immediately opposite where they want to join the second train (or by the stairs, etc.). It's the confused foreigner who has never made the trip before, has mobility problems and heavy luggage and is last to alight the inbound service, at the opposite end of the platform to where they need to be.

Perfect is the enemy of good !

To me it’s a bit of a strawman to say every single person must be waited for, otherwise it’s no use.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Delay repayment doesn't come close to compensating you for the time you should have had to yourself. It is a gesture, nothing more.

Quite so - missing a flight, a west end debut, a job interview, a birth, a deathbed, a funeral, are irreplaceable. And it's not always possible to get an earlier train to allow for the possibility of a missed connection

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2023 ==

Perfect is the enemy of good !

To me it’s a bit of a strawman to say every single person must be waited for, otherwise it’s no use.

Of course, but shutting the doors in the faces of people making a cross-platform connection is just nasty (and potentially dangerous). Such people should not be trusted with customer-facing duties.

 

[43066]

However, your point remains true. As far as the passenger is concerned, it's no good the railway conducting an internal blame game, when all they care about is the fact that they've been delayed because of the narrow-minded insistence on minimising delays to trains, rather than overall delays to passengers.

It’s almost as if someone has worked out that minimising overall delays to trains also minimises overall delays to passengers…

It might make sense in a few edge cases, but I think the endless railing on here against connections generally not being held is the more narrow minded view, as it completely ignores the delays to passengers already on the trains which end up being held for a few stragglers coming off a delayed connecting train.

The former Station Manager in me keeps coming back to the fact that you can never actually hold a connection 'for a few seconds'. The issue isn't the Olympic sprinter wearing trainers who's waiting at the door immediately opposite where they want to join the second train (or by the stairs, etc.). It's the confused foreigner who has never made the trip before, has mobility problems and heavy luggage and is last to alight the inbound service, at the opposite end of the platform to where they need to be.

Absolutely. Waiting a few seconds can easily lead to several minutes - especially if you’re talking about more than a handful of people. This will impact those already on that train, and all those on trains delayed as that train has missed its slot.

And if connections have to be held for a few extra minutes - so be it. That's effectively just a reactionary delay from the first train's delay. Of course the tendency is always to try and avoid reactionary delays continuing, but sometimes it's unavoidable. A well-designed timetable (including resource plans) should have enough sufficient slack for such delays to be caught up.

But anyone who has ever worked on the railway should know that very often there isn’t “sufficient slack for such delays to be caught up”, especially on long distance services across several regions, or those running on the congested network in London and the south east. That isn’t a sign of a badly designed timetable, it’s a sign of one that delivers capacity and minimises overall delay.

At the end of the delay, the railway doesn't exist to play trains. It exists to move passengers (and, to a small extent, freight) and neither of these types of customers could care less about the individual delays to services. They care about the delay to their journey.

Which is why we need to ensure minimal delays overall which (surprise surprise) is what the current system is designed to incentivise. Nothing to do with playing trains.

They 'may wait', but in some European nations, connections can often have long waiting times.

France is one example. Worse than the UK.

That’s the logical extension of what often seems to be suggested on here; far longer wait times and a far lower capacity timetable. That’s a worse outcome for more passengers more of the time, but hey, at least connections would be held!

 

[zwk500]

But anyone who has ever worked on the railway should know that very often there isn’t “sufficient slack for such delays to be caught up”, especially on long distance services across several regions, or those running on the congested network in London and the south east. That isn’t a sign of a badly designed timetable, it’s a sign of one that delivers capacity and minimises overall delay.

I think there are a number of cases where the timetable has stopped trying to provide specific connections and instead runs trains at a higher frequency than is really justified to minimise the interchange time regardless if a train is late or on time.

Which is why we need to ensure minimal delays overall which (surprise surprise) is what the current system is designed to incentivise. Nothing to do with playing trains.

Designed to, but often doesn't.

That’s the logical extension of what often seems to be suggested on here; far longer wait times and a far lower capacity timetable. That’s a worse outcome for more passengers more of the time, but hey, at least connections would be held!

Again, there are a lot of lesser-used lines where a rock-solid 1tph service would be better for passengers and society than a highly fluctuating 2tph timetable. And longer wait times explicitly means connections aren't held, just that passengers are expected to kick around.

The UK has a number of problems that make a European-style connecting network difficult to implement:
1: restricted infrastructure. Most European stations have plenty of platforms and plenty of lines that they can keep local and long distance separated, minimising reactionary delays. They have also rebuilt their infrastructure to get trains on specific platforms thought out for interconnecting travel.
2: Through services. UK passengers want trains to London or their nearest big city, and often both. This means connections get deprioritised to allow through services to run. These services are undoubtedly better for the majority of passengers but for the minority who want to connect into the through service it can appear deliberately obstructive
3: A very interconnected network. Many branch lines don't simply have 1 point of connection, where you'd naturally schedule all the dwell and then run up the branch and back as quick as possible. They often interact with multiple main lines and don't always have an obvious point of priority.
4: A lack of clear strategic direction and the involvement of politicians in direct operational choices. Of course there are political influences in European nations, but the UK is particularly bad for MPs intervening to the detriment of the overall service to ensure they have a bullet point for their constituency update.

 

[43066]

I think there are a number of cases where the timetable has stopped trying to provide specific connections and instead runs trains at a higher frequency than is really justified to minimise the interchange time regardless if a train is late or on time.

That’s certainly true in parts of the southeast, albeit given the recent cut backs there will be fewer examples. As a general point I’d much rather frequencies were good enough, and trains generally punctual enough, that people don’t worry about missing connections.

Designed to, but often doesn't.

The strategy generally is to avoid delaying other trains for one late train. It’s difficult to see how this doesn’t minimise overall delay, albeit sometimes at the expense of a few people being disproportionately inconvenienced eg twenty people missing a connection are delayed for one hour each - ideally less if frequencies are better - to prevent five hundred people each being delayed five minutes.

Again, there are a lot of lesser-used lines where a rock-solid 1tph service would be better for passengers and society than a highly fluctuating 2tph timetable. And longer wait times explicitly means connections aren't held, just that passengers are expected to kick around.

I suppose it really just means the connections aren’t there in the first place. I’m not sure that’s something to aspire to. It might also mean more cases of people deciding just to drive.

Do we want a higher frequency network, with the risk of occasional missed connections, or one where people miss fewer connections but are expected to kick around for much longer than necessary?

These services are undoubtedly better for the majority of passengers but for the minority who want to connect into the through service it can appear deliberately obstructive

It is that minority who tend to be myopically considered on here, with the majority being completely ignored.

 

[zwk500]

That’s certainly true in parts of the southeast, albeit given the recent cut backs there will be fewer examples. As a general point I’d much rather frequencies were good enough, and trains generally punctual enough, that people don’t worry about missing connections.

In the southeast, the balance should probably be in favour of frequencies, because the majority of travel into and out of London is busy enough to warrant 2tph+ all day.

The strategy generally is to avoid delaying other trains for one late train. It’s difficult to see how this doesn’t minimise overall delay, albeit sometimes at the expense of a few people being disproportionately inconvenienced eg twenty people missing a connection are delayed for one hour each - ideally less if frequencies are better - to prevent five hundred people each being delayed five minutes.

The issue is that a connection at Maidenhead into the Henley line is not the same as a connection at Redhill into a North Downs line train. Holding the Henley shuttle would not cause any further problems other than to the shuttle, which tbh can just run late for as long as it needs to as people want the mainline trains. However delaying a NDL train at Redhill risks stuffing Guildford up, which would be a really bad thing for the majority of passengers.

I suppose it really just means the connections aren’t there in the first place. I’m not sure that’s something to aspire to. It might also mean more cases of people deciding just to drive.

They're there, just planned far enough apart that it doesn't really help. I frequently get the train between London and Maastricht, and it's noticeable that the change at Brussels between Eurostar and SNCB IC services is usually 20-30 minutes (Eurostar is 2-hourly, SNCB Brussels-Liege hourly), but the change at Liège from the hourly IC to the hourly stoptrein is 7 minutes each way - the only time I've missed that connection was when the Maastricht-Liege train was cancelled outright due to there being no driver. In contrast the connection at Brussels is just too short to check in when returning to the UK, meaning I have to arrive an hour earlier than I'd like and kick around in the departure lounge for ages.

Do we want a higher frequency network, with the risk of occasional missed connections, or one where people miss fewer connections but are expected to kick around?

I personally want a network where long-distance trains are run at sensible frequencies with long trains, but suburban metro services are run far more frequently as that serves both demands very well - people just heading around town have lots of trains to choose from, and people connecting into and out of IC services know they won't be waiting for too long.

It is that minority who tend to be myopically considered on here, with the majority being completely ignored.

Problem is for an individual it's very difficult to know if they're in a majority of one, or a majority of a million.

 

[43066]

The issue is that a connection at Maidenhead into the Henley line is not the same as a connection at Redhill into a North Downs line train. Holding the Henley shuttle would not cause any further problems other than to the shuttle, which tbh can just run late for as long as it needs to as people want the mainline trains. However delaying a NDL train at Redhill risks stuffing Guildford up, which would be a really bad thing for the majority of passengers.

The Maidenhead is perhaps in the category of edge cases where holding is justified - the St Ives branch being another (albeit holding the mainline service for the branch generally would make less sense than the other way around).

An example of a mainline/branch connection reasonably local to me is the Bromley North/Grove Park branch. Nobody would seriously suggest holding connections at Grove Park, because the shuttle runs every twenty minutes at peak times, and there are 4tph each way to and from London on the SEML.

I personally want a network where long-distance trains are run at sensible frequencies with long trains, but suburban metro services are run far more frequently as that serves both demands very well - people just heading around town have lots of trains to choose from, and people connecting into and out of IC services know they won't be waiting for too long.

Well, we can all dream!

Problem is for an individual it's very difficult to know if they're in a majority of one, or a majority of a million.

There are always going to be winners and losers, but I find big picture perspective can be lacking on here. It’s also notable that the people who complain about connections not being held will often be the same people who then moan about delayed trains.

I *generally* make far more tight connections than I miss, because 95% of trains are on time, despite the extremely congested network. I think that’s pretty good.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

I'm planning a trip from the Central Belt to the Far North Line. The first train northbound to Inverness is scheduled in at 1029 and the Wick train departs at 1041. However, the 1029 arrival is often delayed on the Highland Mainline. Scotrail told me on Twitter they "probably" wouldn't hold the connection even for a few minutes. However, I can't see anything in the timetable that would cause a problem, as the only other train between Inverness and Dingwall around then is the 1056 to Kyle. Furthermore, the Wick train has a 64-minute wait at Wick before it heads back!

 

[Starmill]

Doesn't Delay Repay deal with this (to a considerable, if not complete extent)?

If you gave me a choice I'd always choose to be on time and not have my money back, rather than sit bored for an hour with nothing to do in particular, be an hour late getting where I were going, and have the money back.

 

[Watershed]

I'm planning a trip from the Central Belt to the Far North Line. The first train northbound to Inverness is scheduled in at 1029 and the Wick train departs at 1041. However, the 1029 arrival is often delayed on the Highland Mainline. Scotrail told me on Twitter they "probably" wouldn't hold the connection even for a few minutes. However, I can't see anything in the timetable that would cause a problem, as the only other train between Inverness and Dingwall around then is the 1056 to Kyle. Furthermore, the Wick train has a 64-minute wait at Wick before it heads back!

As with most lines in the area, the Far North and Kyle lines have long single line sections. I can't remember exactly where the first block section is towards Dingwall, but 15 minutes may not give as much leeway as you might think.

The long turnround at Wick is necessary because these trains are generally worked out and back by the same traincrew, so they need a break. If the turnround is reduced due to the train being held, the traincrew are still entitled to take their booked break (and it's important they do, so they're well rested to safely undertake the long return journey).

That may mean the train leaves late despite an apparently generous turnround. In turn, that may cause delays to spiral for the rest of the day due to the single line nature of the Far North Line.

This makes it a far harder decision in terms of whether or not the train should be held for the connection. However, in this instance I would expect for the connection to be held for something up to 10 minutes. It's very common for guards to come round before Inverness asking about connections and speaking to Control where necessary.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

In the olden days of BR, when there was an hourly Helsby - Hooton service, I just missed a late night connection at Helsby when the Hooton train wasn't held for a couple of minutes to wait for a late running Manchester - Chester working. When I complained to the signalman, the box being on the platform, he said "There are no connections here!"

 

[zwk500]

In the olden days of BR, when there was an hourly Helsby - Hooton service, I just missed a late night connection at Helsby when the Hooton train wasn't held for a couple of minutes to wait for a late running Manchester - Chester working. When I complained to the signalman, the box being on the platform, he said "There are no connections here!"

This is another example of where difficult choices might need to be made - withdrawal of branches from the national network so that a greater overall frequency can be offered on the remaining lines.

Merseyrail has some obvious candidates for this - extend Ellesmere port to Helsby, and Headbolt Lane to Wigan. Allows you to serve the Helsby-Chester and Wigan-Southport lines with a doubled frequency. Not necessarily serving the journeys of people most directly, but by offering 4tph to Helsby and Wigan you can meet the connections better. Wigan has the bay for easy interchange, Helsby would need a bit of modding to allow Merseyrail to terminate in the existing westbound branch platform, with a potential freight connection maintained on the north side of the formation.

 

[Johnny Lewis]

The branch from Maidenhead is to/from Marlow, not Henley-on-Thames.

Off-peak, the service between Maidenhead and Marlow is hourly, and has just a 3 minute turnaround at Marlow.

So holding a connection at Maidenhead for even just 1 minute immediately has the potential to inject delay into the return journey, which then has the potential to affect connections out of that return train.

Coming back to the very start point of this thread, it does however seem that there would be scope for the Oxenholme to Windermere train to run 5 minutes later, as there is sufficient time in the Windermere turnaround for that to still leave at its scheduled time.

 

[Dr Hoo]

If you gave me a choice I'd always choose to be on time and not have my money back, rather than sit bored for an hour with nothing to do in particular, be an hour late getting where I were going, and have the money back.

[Regarding Delay Repay.]

Perhaps this is an attitudinal or personal planning thing. Admittedly with the privilege of being retired I never plan any important journey (e.g. professional meeting, funeral, speaking appointment) without at least an hour's slack in my schedule. So if my common connections at Sheffield or Manchester 'work' I arrive an hour early but if they don't I've had to hang around for an hour en route instead. I always have a plan - such as a book - to avoid being 'bored'.

And isn't it nice to have had a 'free' trip to London or wherever?

Meanwhile, back at East Midlands Railway, if the management are having to explain to the DfT and Treasury why they are paying out £1,000+ (or whatever) every time that the Lincoln-Newark shuttle is late thanks to some heroically tight diagram then something might actually be done to reduce the likelihood of it happening in future.

Would you rather that there was no redress and no incentive on management to do anything?

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps this is an attitudinal or personal planning thing. Admittedly with the privilege of being retired I never plan any important journey (e.g. professional meeting, funeral, speaking appointment) without at least an hour's slack in my schedule. So if my common connections at Sheffield or Manchester 'work' I arrive an hour early but if they don't I've had to hang around for an hour en route instead. I always have a plan - such as a book - to avoid being 'bored'.

But if you are commuting then adding two whole hours to your day by choice is just not feasible. People will simply move jobs.

And isn't it nice to have had a 'free' trip to London or wherever?

It's very nice to have a free trip if it doesn't put you out of pocket elsewhere but the train company isn't going to refund you the theatre tickets or whatever it is you were going to see. Especially if you're traveling for work and need to reimburse people for missing an appointment that you couldn't schedule with a spare hour in case the trains were stuffed.

Would you rather that there was no redress and no incentive on management to do anything?

Obviously something is better than nothing, but I don't think the present system is really defensible for serious delays. Once you get beyond 30-45 minutes delay, the cost in time/missed appointments quickly outweighs the delay repay money. And this is before we get to the cancelled/abandoned journey distinction.

 

[43055]

The Matlock one is odd. Up until very recently you'd be held for maybe 3 or 4 minutes to connect if need be and the Sheffield would go first. Recently I've had the box giving us the road to go with the Sheffield pretty much hitting the platform, even if the platform staff haven't hit the train ready to start for the Matlock train.

I have had it where I was on one of the xx10 Derby - Birmingham's which left on time only to be held for a good 10-15 mins adjacent to the EMCC for a delayed xx53 towards Reading which was non stop to Birmingham.

Seems the 2137 to Matlock on friday was held for both the EMR to Sheffield and following Cross Country to Leeds arriving into Duffield 22 mins late.

 

[Llandudno]

I have had it where I was on one of the xx10 Derby - Birmingham's which left on time only to be held for a good 10-15 mins adjacent to the EMCC for a delayed xx53 towards Reading which was non stop to Birmingham.

Seems the 2137 to Matlock on friday was held for both the EMR to Sheffield and following Cross Country to Leeds arriving into Duffield 22 mins late.

Maybe control/signal person read my post about what happened the previous evening…!

 

[Starmill]

[Regarding Delay Repay.]

Perhaps this is an attitudinal or personal planning thing. Admittedly with the privilege of being retired I never plan any important journey (e.g. professional meeting, funeral, speaking appointment) without at least an hour's slack in my schedule. So if my common connections at Sheffield or Manchester 'work' I arrive an hour early but if they don't I've had to hang around for an hour en route instead. I always have a plan - such as a book - to avoid being 'bored'.

And isn't it nice to have had a 'free' trip to London or wherever?

Meanwhile, back at East Midlands Railway, if the management are having to explain to the DfT and Treasury why they are paying out £1,000+ (or whatever) every time that the Lincoln-Newark shuttle is late thanks to some heroically tight diagram then something might actually be done to reduce the likelihood of it happening in future.

I make all of those provisions myself too, but that fundamentally changes nothing. I'm prepared for a delay, but I don't want to be delayed. If I didn't care at all I'd probably not be travelling. If I just wanted the journey at a lower price I'd probably just find a cheaper way to travel. When I'm using a season ticket the compensation payment is tiny even for an hour of delay. Nothing close to the minimum wage for an adult aged 23 or older for an hour.

Meanwhile, back at East Midlands Railway, if the management are having to explain to the DfT and Treasury why they are paying out £1,000+ (or whatever) every time that the Lincoln-Newark shuttle is late thanks to some heroically tight diagram then something might actually be done to reduce the likelihood of it happening in future.

Would you rather that there was no redress and no incentive on management to do anything?

I think that the key point here is that this simply doesn't happen. It's a comforting myth that delay repay acts as an incentive to improve performance, nothing more. I'd like actual incentives that lead to better long-term performance, rather than the current metaphorical ones. The airline-style model does this slightly more effectively by calculating the compensation independently of the fare.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==

It's very nice to have a free trip if it doesn't put you out of pocket elsewhere but the train company isn't going to refund you the theatre tickets or whatever it is you were going to see. Especially if you're traveling for work and need to reimburse people for missing an appointment that you couldn't schedule with a spare hour in case the trains were stuffed.

Generally train companies won't even cover direct costs arising out of disruption caused by their failures, such as taking a taxi to save an hour's delay when a cancelled train on an hourly route, because of a shortage of train crew. Let alone any attempt to get them to cover consequential losses such as your example of theater tickets or working time.

 

[30907]

Coming back to the very start point of this thread, it does however seem that there would be scope for the Oxenholme to Windermere train to run 5 minutes later, as there is sufficient time in the Windermere turnaround for that to still leave at its scheduled time.

Indeed - it's then a trainful of passengers having an extra 5min on their journey vs a handful of W Mids/MKC passengers having a 60min faster early morning journey.
You could argue it either way!

 

[Spartacus]

Coming back to the very start point of this thread, it does however seem that there would be scope for the Oxenholme to Windermere train to run 5 minutes later, as there is sufficient time in the Windermere turnaround for that to still leave at its scheduled time.

Are we certain there's no rest period booked at Windermere after it works in from Manchester Airport which would be compromised by the extended stop at Oxenholme?

I wonder if there's any more passengers from the West Midlands than passengers for Ambleside and Grasmere who might then miss their bus connection at Windermere?

What's to say if you change the timetable to connect with the service from the West Midlands that there won't be people then moaning that it should be held for the next service arriving at Oxenholme, or the next, as it's not far from those either? If you did that it wouldn't go until 10:45. That's the trouble with frequent services, there's almost always going to be a "connection" that just misses that someone thinks should be altered. Like a guard just holding the doors for the last passenger, hold it for one and you could hold it for ages as there's almost always another last passenger.

 

[Watershed]

I wonder if there's any more passengers from the West Midlands than passengers for Ambleside and Grasmere who might then miss their bus connection at Windermere?

In a well-integrated public transport system, the bus would be timed to connect with the train, not the other way around. The bus doesn't really have any constraints as to when it can run, unlike a train.

Are we certain there's no rest period booked at Windermere after it works in from Manchester Airport which would be compromised by the extended stop at Oxenholme?

I'm not aware of there being any booked breaks at Windermere, at least not anymore. The turnround just isn't long enough for a proper break. The handful of breaks are all done at Oxenholme with a relief crew taking over.

 

[pgfb1306]

As with most lines in the area, the Far North and Kyle lines have long single line sections. I can't remember exactly where the first block section is towards Dingwall, but 15 minutes may not give as much leeway as you might think.

The long turnround at Wick is necessary because these trains are generally worked out and back by the same traincrew, so they need a break. If the turnround is reduced due to the train being held, the traincrew are still entitled to take their booked break (and it's important they do, so they're well rested to safely undertake the long return journey).

That may mean the train leaves late despite an apparently generous turnround. In turn, that may cause delays to spiral for the rest of the day due to the single line nature of the Far North Line.

This makes it a far harder decision in terms of whether or not the train should be held for the connection. However, in this instance I would expect for the connection to be held for something up to 10 minutes. It's very common for guards to come round before Inverness asking about connections and speaking to Control where necessary.

Exactly. Speak to the guard and if control can hold it, they will. I've travelled between the HML and the Far North more often than I care to remember and only once been put in a taxi.

Remarkably, I was on the last train from Milan towards Brig last night which lost a few minutes coming out of Milan which resulted in a 10min delay at Brig - those heading towards Bern had a wet 60 minutes to wait as the 2126 wasn't held. So we're not as bad as some like to make out.

 

[King Lazy]

Windermere wouldn’t be a place a break would be timetabled.

All official diagrammed breaks occur at places that have agreed facilities for that (usually such things as a microwave to heat food, toilet facilities, drinking water etc).

Windermere isn’t such a place. Even though it has a booking office and the staff in the booking office will have such facilities cash regulations will dictate that Traincrew are not ordinarily allowed access to said facilities and additionally the booking office isn’t open for all trains.

All prescribed breaks in drivers diagrams for Windermere services will be taken at Preston/Lancaster/Oxenholme.

And the planning for such breaks includes such things as walking time to/from platform to messroom. Oxenholme mess room is almost as far from the driving cab of a train to Windermere as it is possible to be at that station.

It often used to be timetabled that a crew would work a single trip to Windermere to allow a break for another crew with multiple trips on a diagram.

Breaks also cannot be taken on a train for the same reasoning. The full agreed facilities are not available.

 

[Watershed]

Windermere wouldn’t be a place a break would be timetabled.

All official diagrammed breaks occur at places that have agreed facilities for that (usually such things as a microwave to heat food, toilet facilities, drinking water etc).

Windermere isn’t such a place. Even though it has a booking office and the staff in the booking office will have such facilities cash regulations will dictate that Traincrew are not ordinarily allowed access to said facilities and additionally the booking office isn’t open for all trains.

All prescribed breaks in drivers diagrams for Windermere services will be taken at Preston/Lancaster/Oxenholme.

And the planning for such breaks includes such things as walking time to/from platform to messroom. Oxenholme mess room is almost as far from the driving cab of a train to Windermere as it is possible to be at that station.

It often used to be timetabled that a crew would work a single trip to Windermere to allow a break for another crew with multiple trips on a diagram.

Breaks also cannot be taken on a train for the same reasoning. The full agreed facilities are not available.

It depends on the terms and conditions of the crew in question. Some types of breaks can be taken anywhere that there's toilet facilities, i.e. the onboard toilets may qualify, and there may be no need for station facilities.

 

[nanstallon]

The traditional concept of connections has all-but-disappeared from the railway's ethos, and has been replaced by trains' (allegedly) timekeeping rather than passengers', where a change is required. I used to suffer this torment when commuting from Betchworth via Redhill, when a few seconds' leeway would have allowed cross-platform interchanges to be acheived with no onward impacts, but the rigid instructions to platform staff meant commonsense was banished. It wears very thin with passengers when they are told that every second counts on the railway as it is essential that everything runs on time, but they miss their infrequent connection because of...a late train.

Passengers/ customers get in the way of running an efficient train set.

 

[King Lazy]

It depends on the terms and conditions of the crew in question. Some types of breaks can be taken anywhere that there's toilet facilities, i.e. the onboard toilets may qualify, and there may be no need for station facilities.

I know. I am a driver who has driven the Windermere branch under their terms and conditions.

I was answering the specific question regarding whether a break at Windermere would be compromised by an extended halt at Oxenholme rather than a general synopsis of breaks nationwide.

And unless the terms and conditions have changed my answer is correct.

All breaks will appear as DBC on the diagram and will not be taken at anywhere other than Preston, Lancaster or Oxenholme in Windermere diagrams as these are the only places with agreed facilities.

 

[Watershed]

I know. I am a driver who has driven the Windermere branch under their terms and conditions.

I was answering the specific question regarding whether a break at Windermere would be compromised by an extended halt at Oxenholme rather than a general synopsis of breaks nationwide.

And unless the terms and conditions have changed my answer is correct.

All breaks will appear as DBC on the diagram and will not be taken at anywhere other than Preston, Lancaster or Oxenholme in Windermere diagrams as these are the only places with agreed facilities.

Well I'm aware of at least one set of driver conditions that relate to the Windermere branch where such breaks could, in theory, be taken at Windermere onboard the train. Evidently those weren't the conditions you drove under!

 

[LUYMun]

As others have said, connections have long been a problem to get right. The only solution would be to provide a direct rail service, but that could come at the cost of fewer available paths, with some cases of overcrowding on sections that a more popular service would've carried. The Reading-Waterloo line is one example.

 

[yorkie]

I can't believe anyone is arguing against holding connections at Oxenholme!

I'd like to see someone try telling the Swiss they are doing it wrong and should be looking at how things are done at Oxenholme; I am sure they would be given a suitable response

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 May 2023 ==

The only solution would be to provide a direct rail service...

Only in the UK would this be deemed the solution!