Connection nonsenses

[King Lazy]

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!

Obviously not.

I’m willing to accept I’m wrong but out of interest I’d like to know what has changed.

I honestly can’t see how any planned timetable for the Windermere branch would include a break on a train at Windermere. The lack of a guaranteed toilet would preclude it in my experience (train toilet may be OOU and/or station could be unmanned at prescribed time rendering station toilet unavailable).

I can only assume that when you say “in theory” this would be an unusual circumstance on an Short Term or Very Short Term Planning diagram?

In which case I believe I’d still be correct in that the Long Term Planning timetable the original question referred to would never be planned to have such a break?

 

[43066]

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

Will passengers/customers like it when their train is delayed because it is being held for a connection, then?

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!

It shouldn’t be too much to expect that breaks should only be taken in a location with proper facilities and away from the workplace.

How typical that the proposed solution here is to make things worse for traincrew, rather than that the TOC puts its hand into its pocket to provide facilities, or arranges breaks where facilities are available.

 

[Falcon1200]

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!

With the intense passenger service over the Far North Line nowadays (intense being relative here, but there are far more passenger trains on the route than ever before), regulating has become extremely challenging. For example, it became standard practice, should the afternoon Inverness-Wick train be running late, to hold it for up to an hour to avoid delaying the afternoon Wick-Inverness, because the former has no work after arrival at Wick, but the latter running late wrecks the entire Far North (and Kyle) timetable for the rest of the day.

And while it would seem only logical to hold 2H63 1041 Inverness-Wick for the first arrival from the south, this train crosses 2H56 0802 Wick-Inverness at Invergordon, and 2H56 in turn crosses 2H71 1205 Inverness-Dingwall at Muir of Ord. Plus at Inverness 2H56 has an 11 minute connection for an Aberdeen train, and a 21 minute connection for an Edinburgh.

 

[nanstallon]

With the intense passenger service over the Far North Line nowadays (intense being relative here, but there are far more passenger trains on the route than ever before), regulating has become extremely challenging. For example, it became standard practice, should the afternoon Inverness-Wick train be running late, to hold it for up to an hour to avoid delaying the afternoon Wick-Inverness, because the former has no work after arrival at Wick, but the latter running late wrecks the entire Far North (and Kyle) timetable for the rest of the day.

And while it would seem only logical to hold 2H63 1041 Inverness-Wick for the first arrival from the south, this train crosses 2H56 0802 Wick-Inverness at Invergordon, and 2H56 in turn crosses 2H71 1205 Inverness-Dingwall at Muir of Ord. Plus at Inverness 2H56 has an 11 minute connection for an Aberdeen train, and a 21 minute connection for an Edinburgh.

Perhaps the answer is to reinstate a few crossing loops, for which Friends of the Far North Line have been campaigning. Back in the 'good old days', pretty well every station had a passing loop. A lot of the problem is that modern signalling makes it very expensive to put in a loop - again in the 'good old days', putting in a loop just involved a weekend's work for a gang of men at time and a quarter!

 

[30907]

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

The thread started with someone wanting a train to be held to create a connection which doesn't currently exist, though.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The thread started with someone wanting a train to be held to create a connection which doesn't currently exist, though.

Yep, but it's how it looks to the public. Hourly train on the branch line departing on the adjacent platform just as your particular train rolls in on the mainline. And that "someone" just happens also to be quite a well-known travel correspondent. It's likely also that more folk alight at Oxenholme to use the branch line connection for Kendal/Windermere, than exit the station there.

 

[geoffk]

Also in UK you sometimes encounter a ticket check on the platform when you're changing trains, potentially leading to a delay and a missed train. I've encountered this at Preston in the past, with revenue staff "hiding" in the subway. I don't know how widespread this practice is.

 

[WAB]

Another strange occurrence last night, Thursday 4 May

2002 EMR Service from London due in Derby at 2131 offers an advertised connection into the EMR 2137 service to Matlock.

The train from London was running 7 minutes late and arrived into Derby at 2138.
The 2137 train to Derby left on time, one minute before the slightly late London train arrived at Derby.

Then the Matlock train gets held at a signal for 5 minutes before it even reaches its first calling point, Duffield….to allow the late running London-Sheffield train to pass!

The upshot is that anyone travelling from London to Belper and Matlock etc would have to wait an hour at Derby station for the next Matlock train.

I guess the amount claimed via delay repay would more than ccover a couple of pints in the Brunswick.

Every cloud…!

The 2102 from St Pancras to Sheffield was eight minutes down tonight due to a disturbance on the Corby stopper in front. The train manager called the Derby supervisor to request that the last Matlock branch service be held. Supervisor says no, so train manager tells passengers over the PA to report to the supervisor's office to get a taxi. On arrival into Derby, the Matlock is still in the platform and the Sheffield has had its route called to go out ahead of the Matlock (sensible given it would only end up getting stuck behind the Matlock anyway). The train manager who was relieved at Derby sees this and calls out on the footbridge for anyone for the Matlock to get over to platform 2 quickly. Whether everyone got the message or not is unknown.

This is one of those no-brainers where it should be held unless the delay is really excessive. The knock-on effects of holding this connection are (depending on the delay):

1. Replatforming the ex-Crewe at Derby (although it ran late tonight)
2. looping the Matlock at St Mary's North Jn to let the Northern to Sheffield pass
3. breaking the connection at Belper for the last 6E bus to Ripley (I'm sure this is a very popular connection...)
4. a short turnaround at Matlock, and running behind the St Pancras to Derby via Nottingham service
5. a slight delay to services berthing at Nottingham
6. breaking Nottingham bus connections of Matlock branch users (again, is this really going to be an issue late at night?)
7. slightly late finish for the crew

It just requires a little bit of thought to give passengers a bit more confidence in connections.

 

[nanstallon]

It is getting like Ryanair - a point to point service, and connections not guaranteed. Delay-repay is the only consolation.

Like Brexit, privatisation is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[JonathanH]

It is getting like Ryanair - a point to point service, and connections not guaranteed. Delay-repay is the only consolation.

Like Brexit, privatisation is the gift that keeps on giving.

It isn't just a matter of privatisation. It isn't possible to hold all connections no matter what.

The idea that a nationalised railway would take substantially different operational decisions is a bit fanciful.

 

[Falcon1200]

The train manager called the Derby supervisor to request that the last Matlock branch service be held. Supervisor

If this is the station supervisor saying no, why would they do that, given that they would then have to deal with the delayed and disgruntled Matlock train passengers? Bizarre!

Like Brexit, privatisation is the gift that keeps on giving.

In what way was this incident a result of privatisation, given that the two trains involved were operated by the same company?

 

[LowLevel]

It's nothing to do with the Derby station supervisor to hold the train, the EMR route controller at East Mids ROC would make that decision and usually for that train the answer would be to wait unless it was getting excessively long, particularly if the number of people changing was significant.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

Not helped by the public timetable (NR GBTT) not showing connections any more, just through trains (and minimum connecting times).
The latest GBTT, compiled with new technology, still omits connections.
Some of the TOC-issued timetable booklets are even worse, not even showing services of other operators.

 

[JonathanH]

Not helped by the public timetable (NR GBTT) not showing connections any more, just through trains (and minimum connecting times).

Does anyone refer to the public timetable to find connections? Online journey planners show connections.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Does anyone refer to the public timetable to find connections? Online journey planners show connections.

Sometimes, as can be useful if you can identify possible unofficial connections, i.e. those which are maybe a minute or two less than the official (but still generous) minimum connection time at a given interchange station, and which wouldn't necessarily ever show on an online journey planner.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I spoke once with the manager of the downside buffet at Oxenholme. She intimated that her entire business model was based on Avanti West Coast's sub-optimal performance. There's not much to do on a cold and wet day as you wait for the next Windermere departure and a coffee and cake can prove tempting. But if the train from London were to arrive on-time she'd have no customers!

 

[nanstallon]

If this is the station supervisor saying no, why would they do that, given that they would then have to deal with the delayed and disgruntled Matlock train passengers? Bizarre!



In what way was this incident a result of privatisation, given that the two trains involved were operated by the same company?

The system introduced when BR was privatised provides penalties for late running, so that a branch line train leaving a minute late incurs a penalty.

 

[zwk500]

The system introduced when BR was privatised provides penalties for late running, so that a branch line train leaving a minute late incurs a penalty.

It would be perfectly possible to amend the penalties to give a 'grace period' for connections, of course. It's not inherent to nationalisation that connections are penalised. Of course, the theory at the time the system was set up was that by encouraging trains to run on time, all advertised times would be maintained.

 

[Kilopylae]

Only in the UK would this be deemed the solution!

It makes perfect sense to be receptive to potential passengers' preferences - it might be peculiarly British to be very averse to changing trains but if that's the market that exists then it's silly not to cater to it.

Does anyone refer to the public timetable to find connections? Online journey planners show connections.

I think it's a bit optimistic even to assume that most passengers are using a journey planner rather than just Google Maps!

 

[zwk500]

I think it's a bit optimistic even to assume that most passengers are using a journey planner rather than just Google Maps!

If you're using google maps to show you an itinerary (which I suspect most are, rather than just next departures from nearest station) then it's a journey planner.