Connections!

[HowardGWR]

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:

How sad. When I was addicted, I longed for restrictions that would curb my habit. This quick turn around would have been just the job.

 

[Antman]

How sad. When I was addicted, I longed for restrictions that would curb my habit. This quick turn around would have been just the job.

I haven't smoked in years but spending all day up and down that line might just rekindle the craving

 

[Fincra5]

Never seen a connection policy... apart from the last trains.

2 minutes I would highly doubt as being a timetabled connection...

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Never seen a connection policy... apart from the last trains.

2 minutes I would highly doubt as being a timetabled connection...

It may not be a timetabled connection, but when the inbound train is on time, as it usually is in SouthEastern land (hah!), would most passengers for the branch not reasonably expect to make the connection, given that is cross-platform ?

 

[Parham Wood]

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.!

I would be livid at having to wait 2 minutes for the doors to open. If it had been me there would have been a formal complaint and letters to the media and MP.

 

[Antman]

I would be livid at having to wait 2 minutes for the doors to open. If it had been me there would have been a formal complaint and letters to the media and MP.

Indeed and I think somebody would be well within their rights to use the emergency door release in that situation?

 

[The Planner]

Struggling to work out if that is casting the net out or genuine, 2 minutes? really?

 

[Fincra5]

Never seen a connection policy... apart from the last trains.

2 minutes I would highly doubt as being a timetabled connection...

It may not be a timetabled connection, but when the inbound train is on time, as it usually is in SouthEastern land (hah!), would most passengers for the branch not reasonably expect to make the connection, given that is cross-platform ?

But it's still not timetabled so therefore no requirement to hold it.. If you make it you're in luck, if not, you have to wait.

And no waiting 2 minutes does not warrant the egress to be pulled.

 

[Antman]

But it's still not timetabled so therefore no requirement to hold it.. If you make it you're in luck, if not, you have to wait.

And no waiting 2 minutes does not warrant the egress to be pulled.

Some people suffer from panic attacks and such like, it was totally unacceptable not to open the doors regardless of connections

 

[MarkyT]

Struggling to work out if that is casting the net out or genuine, 2 minutes? really?

I wonder if the observer actually saw the guard deliberately delay operating the release, or if not in sight could the guard have been detained by some other reason (a needy customer, some youth trouble, even an unreliable switch at first attempt) and it only seemed to the observer as if it was being done deliberately. It is just possible that with Severnoaks being such a busy station there is a policy to do just this: i.e. If there is a simultaneous dispatch going on in an adjacent cross-connecting platform, then hold the door release. If the doors of an adjacent arriving train were not opening as expected, even after a few more seconds than normal, then the adjacent dispatcher is going to go ahead and start dispatch, because there's no telling how long the doors may take if there's a fault. That is rational. Once a dispatch has commenced, unless there's a genuine emergency, it will not be aborted. There are thousands of dispatches going on every day, all under authority of humans and sometimes there are going to be mistakes, hopefully not safety ones. Back to the Sittingbourne example, if the Sheerness guard had held the train a further 30 seconds or so, everyone would have been happy, no one would have complained, management would almost certainly have been non-the-wiser as it is likely the train could have caught up any tiny delay in the terminus layover and all would have been well. They didn't. Maybe that can be seen as a small mistake in customer relations terms, but equally there was nothing they actually did wrong and importantly they didn't abort the procedure once started.

 

[AM9]

It is clear that the DfT pressure on TOCs running services to timetable has unintended consequences. Where a connection can be made unofficially but holding it may compromise other trains' punctuality it is frustrating.
If it is a timetabled connection, as mentioned, some cross-platform ones are just four minutes, then there is still a likelyhood of missed connections with some trains often running that late midway along the route but still arriving at their terminus on time. Here the ire of passengers is rightly justified. If the frequency of the linked service is relatively high, passengers just have to accept it. Where the next train is some time away, say greater than 30 minutes, then with some TOCs there is a different situation, i.e., delay compensation kicks in. Call me cynical but I'm sure that the holding decision is different if the arriving train is of the same TOC as the linked train, than if it was another TOC's.
The delay compensation process is frequently obfuscated by TOCs, sometimes by those with the worst punctuality records. It's OK for those in the know about operations and public access to sites like Real Time Trains, but the general travelling public have to rely on the TOCs being honest enough to confess their failure, which becomes more complicated when more than one TOC is involved in an overall delay. I imagine that one day, delay compensation could be harmonised so any passenger is presented with the same set of rules.
Were that the case, a much greater improvement would be for all delay claims to be handled by a single body, NR? maybe even ATOC, so that not only can simple reasons be identified and due payment made, but also unreliable services can be investigated and the working timetables developed to improve them.
I'm sure that other than cost of this body alone (which should be recovered from the worst offenders, including NR), members here may suggest other reasons why it couldn't work.

 

[Fincra5]

But it's still not timetabled so therefore no requirement to hold it.. If you make it you're in luck, if not, you have to wait.

And no waiting 2 minutes does not warrant the egress to be pulled.

Some people suffer from panic attacks and such like, it was totally unacceptable not to open the doors regardless of connections

I very much doubt the driver (or guard) would delay releasing the doors.

How can you be sure its not a door fault?

Yes panic attacka use the passcom etc etc. Pulling an egress because you can see the other train and you're inpatient isn't acceptable.

 

[A-driver]

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.!

Lol. Don't believe that for a minute.

If the doors delayed opening then it was obviously down to some kind of fault. Why on earth would a guard or driver ever delay releasing the doors for that long?! Exactly what do you think they would get out of it?!

Sorry but you are either greatly exaggerating or jumping to an assumption and missing the true reason for the delay.

 

[steamybrian]

Lol. Don't believe that for a minute.

If the doors delayed opening then it was obviously down to some kind of fault. Why on earth would a guard or driver ever delay releasing the doors for that long?! Exactly what do you think they would get out of it?!

Sorry but you are either greatly exaggerating or jumping to an assumption and missing the true reason for the delay.

Because I was in the same carriage as the guard...! He said afterwards it was not a booked connection.!
I have also seen passengers miss connections at Paddock Wood and Ashford by seconds because of this policy.

 

[The Planner]

Were that the case, a much greater improvement would be for all delay claims to be handled by a single body, NR? maybe even ATOC, so that not only can simple reasons be identified and due payment made, but also unreliable services can be investigated and the working timetables developed to improve them.
I'm sure that other than cost of this body alone (which should be recovered from the worst offenders, including NR), members here may suggest other reasons why it couldn't work.

Delay attribution is carried out by NR anyway and then dealt with from there, either being accepted by the TOC/NR or disputed, again by either the NR department or the TOC. It is a huge cottage industry and money merry go round on its own. If a delay is put down to the timetable (and subsequently accepted) then it gets investigated and where possible changes made, it is the system now. Splitting it out from NR and making it a third party wouldn't make any improvements in my view, you are just adding another level of bureaucracy, jobs and cost to it.

 

[Fincra5]

Because I was in the same carriage as the guard...! He said afterwards it was not a booked connection.!
I have also seen passengers miss connections at Paddock Wood and Ashford by seconds because of this policy.

AFAIK Guards on SE do not open the doors and it's down to the driver!

I still DO NOT believe that traincrew would deliberately delay the door opening. Unless under instruction from Control or Signaller... but then i'd have expected a PA to be made owing to that.

 

[ComUtoR]

AFAIK Guards on SE do not open the doors and it's down to the driver!

Very true. Only the Driver opens the doors.

 

[A-driver]

Because I was in the same carriage as the guard...! He said afterwards it was not a booked connection.!

I have also seen passengers miss connections at Paddock Wood and Ashford by seconds because of this policy.

Sorry but I don't believe you on that at all. If nothing else the guard dosnt open the doors on SET, the driver does and the driver certainly wouldn't have any knowledge of booked connections. If this actually did happen at all the. It would have been due to some kind of fault.

 

[AM9]

Delay attribution is carried out by NR anyway and then dealt with from there, either being accepted by the TOC/NR or disputed, again by either the NR department or the TOC. It is a huge cottage industry and money merry go round on its own. If a delay is put down to the timetable (and subsequently accepted) then it gets investigated and where possible changes made, it is the system now. Splitting it out from NR and making it a third party wouldn't make any improvements in my view, you are just adding another level of bureaucracy, jobs and cost to it.

If it is already based around NR's attribution, then why shouldn't passenger claims all be made directly through NR?

 

[JackTheLad]

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.!

Trains from Otford to Sevenoaks are operated by Thameslink, are driver operated only and do not have guards.

 

[The Planner]

If it is already based around NR's attribution, then why shouldn't passenger claims all be made directly through NR?

NR don't operate trains and I doubt the operators would want us deciding their delay repay claims for them.

 

[AM9]

NR don't operate trains and I doubt the operators would want us deciding their delay repay claims for them.

I'm sure they don't because it denies them the opportunity to confuse the liability situation. They would be better off concentrating on trains service rather than blame shifting.
Apart from hardened travellers and enthusiasts, most passengers still think that they buy their ticket from 'the railway' (British Rail), they travel on 'the railway's' trains, running on 'the railway's' tracks, to times published in 'the railway's' (National Rail's) timetable.
It's irrelevant exactly which part(s) of the railway fail(s) to deliver the advertised service(s) that they have paid to travel on, so why should they have to negotiate the labyrinth of a farcical 'privatised' system to get recompense?

 

[Antman]

I very much doubt the driver (or guard) would delay releasing the doors.

How can you be sure its not a door fault?

Yes panic attacka use the passcom etc etc. Pulling an egress because you can see the other train and you're inpatient isn't acceptable.

I am just commenting on what somebody else said, if there was a door fault shouldn't there have been an announcement?

I used to work on the buses and I can imagine what would happen if I pulled up at a stop and told passengers they would have to wait two minutes before I let them off, I'd probably have been lynched!

 

[A-driver]

I am just commenting on what somebody else said, if there was a door fault shouldn't there have been an announcement?



I used to work on the buses and I can imagine what would happen if I pulled up at a stop and told passengers they would have to wait two minutes before I let them off, I'd probably have been lynched!

Yes-and the same would have happened to the guard if he had said that he wouldn't open the doors for 2 mins which is why it clearly isn't a truthful account of what actually happened!

 

[HH]

NR don't operate trains and I doubt the operators would want us deciding their delay repay claims for them.

Legally there is no 'contract' between the passenger and Network Rail, so they have no claim against NR for delays.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure they don't because it denies them the opportunity to confuse the liability situation. They would be better off concentrating on trains service rather than blame shifting.
Apart from hardened travellers and enthusiasts, most passengers still think that they buy their ticket from 'the railway' (British Rail), they travel on 'the railway's' trains, running on 'the railway's' tracks, to times published in 'the railway's' (National Rail's) timetable.
It's irrelevant exactly which part(s) of the railway fail(s) to deliver the advertised service(s) that they have paid to travel on, so why should they have to negotiate the labyrinth of a farcical 'privatised' system to get recompense?

That's not my impression. I think that you're significantly underestimating the average passenger. People who don't travel (regularly) on trains might think that.

 

[fusionblue]

This brings up something that happened a few months ago. May ask here.

I was at Farringdon to change at Blackfriars for the last Sevenoaks stopping service of the day, however the first train was delayed by a couple of minutes enough to mean i would have missed the sevenoaks train. I have a travelcard but went another way to get home, because i wasn't sure what would have happened in those instances.

1 - would i have got delay repay for that?
2 - i understand that a taxi would be provided in cases but does the same apply in london or would they have just sent me elsewhere given i have a travelcard?

 

[PermitToTravel]

They just have to get you to Sevenoaks; seeing you onto a bus you already have a ticket for would discharge their responsibilities. This is the action I would expect them to take.

 

[yorkie]

This brings up something that happened a few months ago. May ask here.

I was at Farringdon to change at Blackfriars for the last Sevenoaks stopping service of the day, however the first train was delayed by a couple of minutes enough to mean i would have missed the sevenoaks train. I have a travelcard but went another way to get home, because i wasn't sure what would have happened in those instances.

1 - would i have got delay repay for that?

There isn't enough information about your intended itinerary and your actual itinerary to answer that question.

2 - i understand that a taxi would be provided in cases but does the same apply in london or would they have just sent me elsewhere given i have a travelcard?

If there is a bus to Sevenoaks and your ticket includes travel on the bus, I don't see any need for a taxi.