Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There are a couple of good reasons:
1. The WTT is to the half minute, this is a bit complex for passenger facing use
2. Sometimes it's better to advertise a nice clean half hourly pattern to passengers even if that means the odd one is actually booked to be a bit late (but arrive on time) e.g. to fit a freight in
But mostly it's just massaging delay statistics (by putting loads of "recovery time" at end destinations) and long has been.
There are a couple of good reasons:
1. The WTT is to the half minute, this is a bit complex for passenger facing use
2. Sometimes it's better to advertise a nice clean half hourly pattern to passengers even if that means the odd one is actually booked to be a bit late (but arrive on time) e.g. to fit a freight in
But mostly it's just massaging delay statistics (by putting loads of "recovery time" at end destinations) and long has been.
Agree with point 1 and can to a degree see point 2 makes sense. But I think we agree the majority of it is for nefarious reasons!
It would be interesting if someone who had a bunch of old timetables could do some random checks and see whether the working and public timetables have grown further apart since DR was introduced
It would be interesting if someone who had a bunch of old timetables could do some random checks and see whether the working and public timetables have grown further apart since DR was introduced
I certainly remember BR adding a load more recovery time when "Charter Compensation" was introduced in the 1990s, even though that was far less generous than DR (I think it was a flat 20% in the form of vouchers for delays over an hour, and only if the railway was at fault, so not for stuff like suicides and severe weather).
Agree with point 1 and can to a degree see point 2 makes sense. But I think we agree the majority of it is for nefarious reasons!
It would be interesting if someone who had a bunch of old timetables could do some random checks and see whether the working and public timetables have grown further apart since DR was introduced
Like many things, I'm sure it's not really the fault of the people doing it. Under the franchise model, one probably had to do that sort of thing. You couldn't be the only one not doing it, or else the Rail Minister would be told you are a particularly poor performer and you would come under pressure to reduce the number of delays.
As Sir Humphrey said to Hacker: "I don't understand the problem, Minister? You told us to reduce the figures, so we reduced the figures."
This one is beyond bizarre. I think I've been paid 2 hour claims instead of the 30 minute one I asked for 3 or 4 times now. You'd think it was pretty simple and obvious software logic to pay the lower of what the railway thinks is due and what the passenger actually claimed!
I don't understand why they bother even ask the passenger to declare how long they were delayed for, given it is, in my experience without exception, completely ignored.
I don't understand why they bother even ask the passenger to declare how long they were delayed for, given it is, in my experience without exception, completely ignored.
A cynical person would say it is to add another item on the form to make filling the form in more work and therefore reduce the number of people claiming.
I don't understand why they bother even ask the passenger to declare how long they were delayed for, given it is, in my experience without exception, completely ignored.
I claimed for a 37 minute delay once, as the train terminated late and short at Milton Keynes and I got a new one to Euston
They then told me my delay was over an hour and gave me more money, presumably because their system felt I couldn't have made the transfer?
On the other hand I've had delays where the door's opened >30 minutes late but because RTT says it arrived at 28 minutes late (and spent 2 minutes stuck outside the station despite saying "arrived"), I've had the 30 minute claim rejected.
In my experience if your inbound train arrives leaving less than that station's published minimum connection time to your outbound train they assume it was missed even if it wasn't.
Indeed. This is removing something that just makes the railway look really, really petty.
If a train is cancelled on a half hourly service and you intended to catch it, and every other train was on time that day, you have been delayed precisely 30 minutes.
And having waited that 30 minutes for the next train it arrives at your destination one minute early you only get a 15 minute delay repay.... as happened to me once.
With the move to On Time metrics in CP6, this is no longer applicable. Previously timetables could be padded at destination to game PPM figures somewhat, however padding the one station in each journey has very little impact nowadays on headline metrics.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's bad because, while perfect performance isn't likely or possible, measuring all the delays is important if you want to analyse all the causes of all the delays. Making the yardstick shorter in order to hide shortcomings mean the causes of small delays aren't identified or learnt from.
Delay and performance analytics are not based on public timetables. A section with a 3-minute recovery time built in where the train departs right time and arrives right time at section end will flag a 3-minute delay.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would be in favour of losing DR15 if the scheme becomes 25/55/115 and processing is handled by a central office. A lot of the 29 minute delays caused by a cancellation would then be paid and the admin savings when the cause of the delay isn't clear would make the whole process a lot simpler to run.
This is only really possible as an informal implementation as public comms would be a nightmare otherwise. 15/30/60 minutes are easy to remember/recognise/calculate thresholds virtually everyone understands. Many people will find it bewildering with a 25/55/115 (or such other non-clock face metrics) and it will do nothing to improve the perception that railway matters are deliberately made far too complex for the average customer to understand.
It would however be good that where a customer catches the next service on a clock face timetable they are not penalised just because the delay may be marginally under the threshold due to quirks of public times, in which case a 5-minute leeway would be quite reasonable in my opinion.
And I fully agree with a central processing office, which can apply the rules more consistently.
On the other hand I've had delays where the door's opened >30 minutes late but because RTT says it arrived at 28 minutes late (and spent 2 minutes stuck outside the station despite saying "arrived"), I've had the 30 minute claim rejected.
This is the MoneySavingExpert argument, see also it justifying having a horrendously complicated fares system which largely benefits those who know it and can eke out the best prices from it.
The answer to that is really that public services should be simple to use. Not everyone has the intelligence or time to play a system to work well for them, and nor should they have to.
I think the Government is proposing here that they will drop DR 15 but in return make DR much easier to claim without trying to navigate pointless complexity like whether it's a refund or DR that is due and entering lists of trains and the likes. It's hard to argue against that probably being best for the greater good, even if it isn't best for the railway enthusiast. (Very rarely, possibly nearly never, do the interests of railway enthusiasts align with those of the general public).
That's true, but I'd bet a pound to a penny the people who don't tend to be the more vulnerable or less advantaged in society in other ways, just as it is with energy switching.
I once had this at Holyhead where the Trust time was a manual report 2 min before we actually stopped moving, which meant we recorded as 29 late despite actually arriving 31 minutes late. It was quite a challenge to get them to understand.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
