Connections!

[ashworth]

I fully understand the reasons why TOCs now like their trains to depart exactly on time and will not hold a train for a connection. I don't always agree with the reasons especially when a wait of just a couple of minutes would often save passengers a very lengthy wait for the next train and perhaps result in significant delay payments. I suppose the argument is that in addition to TOCs being fined for late running trains, it can inconvenience passengers already on the train and cause others to miss their connections further down the line.

However, what I witnessed last week whilst spending a few days touring Kent, was unbelievable and in my opinion totally inconsiderate and unnecessary inconvenience to passengers. Perhaps I cannot blame the guard who did it as she was probably carrying out instructions given to her by Southeastern.

I was standing on Platform 2 at Sittingbourne waiting for the train to Dover Priory and the Sheerness train was standing at Platform 3. A slightly late running St Pancras to Ramsgate train pulled into Platform 2 with the easy cross platform connection to Sheerness. As the doors opened on the Ramsgate train and the people alighted and walked across the platform, the guard on the Sheerness train blew the whistle. People walked across to the doors of the Sheerness train and asked her if this was Sheerness train and she answered 'Yes, but we are just going. There's another in 30 minutes.' The train then set off for Sheerness leaving passengers looking amazed.

Just 15 seconds delay would have allowed those people to step onto the Sheerness train. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere but that does not create good passenger relations.

 

[yorkie]

That doesn't happen on the FGW branchlines.

It's Southeastern though, so I'm not at all surprised. Passengers are not high on the list of priorities.

 

[455driver]

Surveys show that passengers want the trains to run on time!
The train left on time, the fact the passengers were not on it is irrelevant to that fact, either they want the train to wait for them and run late or they want it to run on time without them, they cant have it both ways!

 

[ComUtoR]

s.

It's Southeastern though, so I'm not at all surprised. Passengers are not high on the list of priorities.

I had that conversation with our MD just the other day. He said we don't give a **** about passengers and then sent a memo telling all staff to stop giving a ****.

@ashworth

The Blackfriars often clashes with the mainlines. The staff at Sevenoaks will pretty much always hold the service for those wanting the connection.

There is also a clash a Bomley South and again staff there will hold for those running over to catch the fast Vic.

Sorry for your bad experience. I'll try and bring it up internally for you.

 

[MarkyT]

I fully understand the reasons why TOCs now like their trains to depart exactly on time and will not hold a train for a connection. I don't always agree with the reasons especially when a wait of just a couple of minutes would often save passengers a very lengthy wait for the next train and perhaps result in significant delay payments. I suppose the argument is that in addition to TOCs being fined for late running trains, it can inconvenience passengers already on the train and cause others to miss their connections further down the line.

However, what I witnessed last week whilst spending a few days touring Kent, was unbelievable and in my opinion totally inconsiderate and unnecessary inconvenience to passengers. Perhaps I cannot blame the guard who did it as she was probably carrying out instructions given to her by Southeastern.

I was standing on Platform 2 at Sittingbourne waiting for the train to Dover Priory and the Sheerness train was standing at Platform 3. A slightly late running St Pancras to Ramsgate train pulled into Platform 2 with the easy cross platform connection to Sheerness. As the doors opened on the Ramsgate train and the people alighted and walked across the platform, the guard on the Sheerness train blew the whistle. People walked across to the doors of the Sheerness train and asked her if this was Sheerness train and she answered 'Yes, but we are just going. There's another in 30 minutes.' The train then set off for Sheerness leaving passengers looking amazed.

Just 15 seconds delay would have allowed those people to step onto the Sheerness train. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere but that does not create good passenger relations.

Looking at RTT there seems to be a reasonable 6 1/2 minute layover at Sheerness-on-Sea throughout most the day, but there is a run I found in the evening peak where the layover reduces to 2 minutes, which is probably the minimum possible. The usual layover gives an opportunity to catch up on a few minutes delay accrued waiting for a main line connection, but for that train, and possibly others in the morning peak, the 2 minutes gives no real contingency for recovery so perhaps its previous on-time departure from Sittingbourne is quite crucial. The train is the 17:55 from Sittingbourne. Is that the train concerned?

 

[yorkie]

Surveys show that passengers want the trains to run on time!
The train left on time, the fact the passengers were not on it is irrelevant to that fact, either they want the train to wait for them and run late or they want it to run on time without them, they cant have it both ways!

I've never known a passenger complain when a train waits a few seconds for a late running connection, but affected passengers will not be happy when the train doesn't. Do you think FGW gets this wrong then?

 

[455driver]

Do you think FGW gets this wrong then?

No I don't, it is one of my pet hates as well, an on time train which leaves the passengers behind is a pointless train and only serves to keep the bean counters happy!

The trains are there to move people and I find FGW one of the better TOCs for holding connections.

 

[ashworth]

Looking at RTT there seems to be a reasonable 6 1/2 minute layover at Sheerness-on-Sea throughout most the day, but there is a run I found in the evening peak where the layover reduces to 2 minutes, which is probably the minimum possible. The usual layover gives an opportunity to catch up on a few minutes delay accrued waiting for a main line connection, but for that train, and possibly others in the morning peak, the 2 minutes gives no real contingency for recovery so perhaps its previous on-time departure from Sittingbourne is quite crucial. The train is the 17:55 from Sittingbourne. Is that the train concerned?

It was the 0955 departure from Sittingbourne to Sheerness as I saw this happen as I was waiting for the 0959 to Dover Priory. The train from St Pancras should have arrived at 0953 but was 2 minutes late arriving at 0955 exactly as the Sheerness train was due to depart. It just seemed very thoughtless to set off as passengers walked across the platform for the sake of a few seconds.

 

[yorkie]

No I don't, it is one of my pet hates as well, an on time train which leaves the passengers behind is a pointless train and only serves to keep the bean counters happy!

The trains are there to move people and I find FGW one of the better TOCs for holding connections.

Ah, I misunderstood. In that case we are in agreement

 

[455driver]

It was the 0955 departure from Sittingbourne to Sheerness as I saw this happen as I was waiting for the 0959 to Dover Priory. The train from St Pancras should have arrived at 0953 but was 2 minutes late arriving at 0955 exactly as the Sheerness train was due to depart. It just seemed very thoughtless to set off as passengers walked across the platform for the sake of a few seconds.

So only 2 minutes to 'connect' if both trains were on time, not exactly a proper connection then!
What is the minimum connection time at Sittingbourne?

If it is a cross platform change then giving them an extra 30 seconds wouldn't have hurt!

 

[greatkingrat]

Minimum connection is 4 minutes, so not valid.

Most of the day the high speed trains arrive xx21/51, and the Sheerness train leaves xx25/55, however the 0953 arrival runs a couple of minutes later than the normal pattern, breaking the connection.

 

[Taunton]

Surveys show that passengers want the trains to run on time!

I'm sure if the passengers had been surveyed appropriately they would put connections being held sensibly well above arriving one or two minutes behind - not that even this would occur if crews knew how to drive up to the line limits like they were capable of doing in the old days.

The train left on time, the fact the passengers were not on it is irrelevant to that fact

This is the sort of attitude by rail staff which turns politicians, and indeed the general travelling public, off supporting the railway. Let's have the money spent on roads instead, where such nonsenses don't happen.

 

[30907]

Connection time at Sittingbourne is 4 minutes, and the Javelin is off pattern so the connection is 3 rather than the normal 5 minutes and technically not valid. A case for retiming the branch train +1 or +2?

Slight problem, though: the xx21 returns from Sheerness MUST run to time or they delay the Vic to Ramsgate.

I would have thought, though, that a couple of minutes fewer for the turnround at Sheerness would be OK?

Anyone know if the branch train waits at other times of day?

 

[MarkyT]

So only 2 minutes to 'connect' if both trains were on time, not exactly a proper connection then!
What is the minimum connection time at Sittingbourne?

If it is a cross platform change then giving them an extra 30 seconds wouldn't have hurt!

And that train 2D23 has a full 7 minute layover at Sheerness-on-Sea, arriving at 10:14 before the stock forms 2D24 departing at 10:21 back to Sittingbourne, so there's really no excuse as it could easily recover a few minutes at the terminus and still get back on diagram.

How many interchanging passengers were inconvenienced do you think compared to the number already on the train? A needless 30 minutes extra delay on the last 20-minute segment of a longer journey can be so frustrating when your destination is so close but so far!

 

[ComUtoR]

And that train 2D23 has a full 7 minute layover at Sheerness-on-Sea, arriving at 10:14 before the stock forms 2D24 departing at 10:21 back to Sittingbourne, so there's really no excuse as it could easily recover a few minutes at the terminus and still get back on diagram.

How many coaches was the train ?

 

[Philip C]

No I don't, it is one of my pet hates as well, an on time train which leaves the passengers behind is a pointless train and only serves to keep the bean counters happy!

The trains are there to move people and I find FGW one of the better TOCs for holding connections.

Firstly may I record my relief to discover that your initial response was simply ironic.

Secondly, as a retired 'bean counter' may I make it clear that, whilst there may conceivably be an economic cost so large as to make seemingly stupid behaviour rational, this is extremely rarely the case. The reputation of a company for treating its customers properly is very important to its continuing well-being, both socially/politically and financially. I can recall many times when the message from the 'bean counters' has been to delight our customers (exceed their expectations), but I cannot recall ever sending out a message to willfully annoy them. Of course, in the real world, there can be difficult choices to be made, but what is good for the customers is normally what is good for the company and also for the beans.

 

[ashworth]

So only 2 minutes to 'connect' if both trains were on time, not exactly a proper connection then!
What is the minimum connection time at Sittingbourne?

If it is a cross platform change then giving them an extra 30 seconds wouldn't have hurt!

I realise that 2 minutes is not a proper connection and officially the train to Sheerness should have departed on time.

If the train from St. Pancras had not even quite come to a stop in the platform it wouldn't have been so bad. It just looked so bad when the guard on the Sheerness train blew her whistle just as the doors on the train from St. Pancras had opened and people were walking the few yards across the platform. I know it may have been exactly 0955 but in less than 30 seconds the half a dozen or so passengers bound for Sheerness could have boarded the train. Two people were so close to the Sheerness train that they were able to ask her if it was the Sheerness train. Never mind the rules, surely common sense should have told her not to blow the whistle for another 15 seconds.

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. It was if automatically by clockwork the Sheerness train had to depart at precisely 0955 whether the passengers were aboard or not. Seriously, the guard only needed to delay blowing the whistle for no more than 15 seconds as the passengers were walking across the platform to the train as the doors closed. They had to stand for a few seconds at the side of locked doors and watch their train depart only to be told by the guard there's another in 30 minutes.

 

[sheff1]

In days of yore the 'connection' would have been held.

Of course there was a very good reason for that - in the absence of central locking, people would be boarding the train whilst it was in motion if it had not been held ! Alternatively, seeing it about to set off they would have jumped from the arriving train before it stopped. I can recall certain journeys where 'minus connections' could be routinely made by adopting a combination of both practises, although I was considerably younger and fitter back then

 

[455driver]

Nowadays the train could have been held without causing any issues, unfortunately 'right time's is King whether we like it or not (I don't) and common sense can get people in trouble!

 

[Antman]

I realise that 2 minutes is not a proper connection and officially the train to Sheerness should have departed on time.

If the train from St. Pancras had not even quite come to a stop in the platform it wouldn't have been so bad. It just looked so bad when the guard on the Sheerness train blew her whistle just as the doors on the train from St. Pancras had opened and people were walking the few yards across the platform. I know it may have been exactly 0955 but in less than 30 seconds the half a dozen or so passengers bound for Sheerness could have boarded the train. Two people were so close to the Sheerness train that they were able to ask her if it was the Sheerness train. Never mind the rules, surely common sense should have told her not to blow the whistle for another 15 seconds.

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. It was if automatically by clockwork the Sheerness train had to depart at precisely 0955 whether the passengers were aboard or not. Seriously, the guard only needed to delay blowing the whistle for no more than 15 seconds as the passengers were walking across the platform to the train as the doors closed. They had to stand for a few seconds at the side of locked doors and watch their train depart only to be told by the guard there's another in 30 minutes.

As you say common sense should have been applied, and often would be in similar situations, and missed connections at Sittingbourne are a regular source of complaints.

 

[Frontera2]

I had that conversation with our MD just the other day. He said we don't give a **** about passengers and then sent a memo telling all staff to stop giving a ****.

@ashworth

The Blackfriars often clashes with the mainlines. The staff at Sevenoaks will pretty much always hold the service for those wanting the connection.

There is also a clash a Bomley South and again staff there will hold for those running over to catch the fast Vic.

Sorry for your bad experience. I'll try and bring it up internally for you.

Are you talking about the MD of SE? If you are then as a fellow employee of SE, that's not a description about said MD that I recognise and suggest you are careful what you post..

 

[anme]

Are you talking about the MD of SE? If you are then as a fellow employee of SE, that's not a description about said MD that I recognise and suggest you are careful what you post..

I'm fairly certain s/he was using humour to illustrate the ridiculousness of an earlier claim.

 

[Frontera2]

Then of course I humbly apologise, long day yesterday and still tired today lol

 

[glbotu]

The failing is ultimately with the DfT's measure of punctuality (PPM), which really only sort of works if you assume everyone only takes one train to their destination.

Someone suggested that the train had 7 minutes turnaround, that's not exactly long. My understanding is that the fastest turnarounds on the network are 185s at Manchester Piccadilly at around 4 minutes. I don't know about 465s (which are what I believe runs the Sheerness branch), but maybe they take a little longer to turn around and 7 minutes is the limit.

 

[MarkyT]

The failing is ultimately with the DfT's measure of punctuality (PPM), which really only sort of works if you assume everyone only takes one train to their destination.

Someone suggested that the train had 7 minutes turnaround, that's not exactly long. My understanding is that the fastest turnarounds on the network are 185s at Manchester Piccadilly at around 4 minutes. I don't know about 465s (which are what I believe runs the Sheerness branch), but maybe they take a little longer to turn around and 7 minutes is the limit.

Some peak services on the Sheerness branch have turnrounds of as little as two minutes. Such small figures are rare but not unheard of. The recently opened Ebbw Vale extension in South Wales, for example, has a regular two-minute turnround at the new terminus all day.

I think Southeastern generally use two car units on the branch shuttles so it's not a great distance to walk from one end to the other, and Sheerness, to put it politely, is probably not the busiest terminus on the network so a driver changing ends will not be battling against huge crowds coming the other way

The branch is single line for the final section from Swale (including the platform at Swale station itself) and the two units used for regular shuttles are timetabled to pass between Kemsley and Swale, so a slightly late departure from Sittingbourne will not introduce single line conflict as long as the subsequent on time departure from Sheerness is acheived. When there's freight about, that clearly complicates matters.

 

[greatkingrat]

There is a difference between the GBTT turnaround, and the WTT turnaround.

While there are trains advertised to arrive Sheerness 1814, depart 1816, the actual WTT times are arr 1812, dep 1816.

Similarly with Ebbw Vale Town, the turnaround is 2 minutes in the public timetable, but 4 minutes in the WTT.

It is not unheard of for trains on single track branch lines to have negative turnarounds in the public timetable.

 

[steamybrian]

I had that conversation with our MD just the other day. He said we don't give a **** about passengers and then sent a memo telling all staff to stop giving a ****.

@ashworth

The Blackfriars often clashes with the mainlines. The staff at Sevenoaks will pretty much always hold the service for those wanting the connection.

There is also a clash a Bomley South and again staff there will hold for those running over to catch the fast Vic.

Sorry for your bad experience. I'll try and bring it up internally for you.

In my experience with travelling over the South Eastern they do NOT and will not hold connections. I have spoken to rail staff and their policy NOT to hold for connections.
As for Sevenoaks a recent incident comes to mind. I was travelling from Otford to Tonbridge involving a simple cross platform change at Sevenoaks. I catch the train on time from Otford and as we come off the branch at Sevenoaks and run into the down loop platform we run parallel with a late running train from London going to Tonbridge and Hastings. Both trains come to a stand in the adjacent platforms together but the guard refused to open the doors on our train until the down main line train had departed which was 2 minutes later...! I complained to the station staff and they said it was not a connection and there will be another train in 10 minutes.!

 

[MarkyT]

I complained to the station staff and they said it was not a connection and there will be another train in 10 minutes.!

Well that is only 10 mimutes extra delay. It's when it's 30 minutes or even worse an hour that it annoys beyond reason. I would say with the density of service at Sevenoaks the decision was justified, but in the OPs case at Sittingbourne it was not. How about a more enlightened policy - flexibility according to location, time of day and likely consequences? Probably no chance of that then!

A 'just missed' connection like this can colour the entire experience of a journey. What could have been a very happy or at least satisfied customer can turn into a very very disappointed and even angry and potentially belligerent one who apart from being late may end up having to stand after losing a booked seat on a missed long distance service - I've had this myself with FGW (some years ago now) and after a very unpleasant and tiring long journey the experience continued to affect my mood all evening.

 

[yorkie]

I'm fairly certain s/he was using humour to illustrate the ridiculousness of an earlier claim.

You're entitled to your opinion but the evidence suggests it's not ridiculous and is, in fact, the truth. If it was ridiculous why was Peter Hendry so scathing of Southeastern? and why have Southeastern tried various tactics to stop people travelling on HS1, why have Southeastern time and time again denied people travel when holding valid itineraries or travelling via permitted routes (here is just one example out of many), and... well, I could go on.

I don't want to go off-topic with the matters mentioned above but it is surely an indisputable fact that Southeastern's policy towards connections is less customer-focused than FGW's policy towards connections? Does anyone really deny this? If so I'd like to see the evidence! They couldn't be any further apart, at opposite ends of the spectrum!

Now before anyone says 'but Southeastern's priority has to be their shareholders, and satisfying the DfT, rather than customers', I will pre-empt this by saying that is exactly my point The primary problem is failings in the rail industry and the way it is structured. However other TOCs, with similar obligations, manage to be rather more pro-customer than Southeastern so forgive me if I place at least some of the 'blame' at Southeastern's door!

 

[Antman]

The failing is ultimately with the DfT's measure of punctuality (PPM), which really only sort of works if you assume everyone only takes one train to their destination.

Someone suggested that the train had 7 minutes turnaround, that's not exactly long. My understanding is that the fastest turnarounds on the network are 185s at Manchester Piccadilly at around 4 minutes. I don't know about 465s (which are what I believe runs the Sheerness branch), but maybe they take a little longer to turn around and 7 minutes is the limit.

You say 7 minutes isn't long but I have seen drivers pop outside at Sheerness for a quick fag between trips, I can't imagine that line being a particularly popular duty:cry: