Right Time punctuality

[whitrope]

Why is being obessive about right time any different than being obsessive about PPM. They can both drive positive behaviour or negative behaviour depending on the culture of the particualr TOC. I suspect Mr Gibb is just edging his bets what with VWC having such dire performance even at 0-10

 

[radamfi]

One statistic I would be interested to read, and which I think is very important, as important as % on time, is the proportion of passengers making their connections.

For example in the SBB Annual Report 2011:
http://m.sbb.ch/en/news.newsdetail.2012-3-2903_01.html

"In 97.7 percent of all cases, passengers made their connections (2010: 97.2 percent)."

But I highly doubt that is available, as British culture considers this irrelevant.

 

[greatkingrat]

The problem with that statistic is it depends on how you define a connection. For example you could redefine the minimum connection time as 30 minutes, this would greatly reduce the % of missed connections but wouldn't be an improvement from the passengers point of view.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

What exactly is the difference between being advised to be at the airport 45 minutes before a flight (allows for ticket check, security check & for all passengers to be ready for take off to schedule) than being at the station in time for the train to depart to schedule?

The obvious difference is that planes do not depart at regular intervals throughout the day to your chosen destination and, almost invariably, have to be booked in advance.

There would be little point in having trains at all if you had to be at a station 45 minutes before departure for a thirty minute journey. Railways, with the exception of Eurostar, have never operated in that way and god forbid that they ever will.

 

[aleph_0]

One statistic I would be interested to read, and which I think is very important, as important as % on time, is the proportion of passengers making their connections.

For example in the SBB Annual Report 2011:
http://m.sbb.ch/en/news.newsdetail.2012-3-2903_01.html

"In 97.7 percent of all cases, passengers made their connections (2010: 97.2 percent)."

But I highly doubt that is available, as British culture considers this irrelevant.

Of course, if you start measuring this, it's possible to just manipulate the statistics again. Tmetables can be altered to make a connection unofficial, minimum connection times can be played with. What's needed is a well-designed timetable, combined with well-defined rules as to when a train should be delayed so that the connection is stll made (i.e. when delaying a train to make a connection provides more benefit than the downside of delays to the train/knock-on delays). The calculation should probably be measured as delay-to-journey, too. Missing a connection to an every-10-minute service doesn't really matter, for example.

I don't really understand this thread. Why not have the WTT as the planned departure time, and the departure time advertised to passengers is a board-by time. The current situation where some places the departure time is more like doors-closing time, and in others they close 30 seconds before departure, others 40, others 1 minute, is just confusing.

The only argument that's been made is the definition of departure. It's true that this is a slight abuse of the word, but if passengers want to complain about the train being 30 seconds late, they should be redirected to a page on nationalrail explaining things. Educating people about this would be no more difficult than the warnings about closing train doors x seconds before departure.

 

[radamfi]

The problem with that statistic is it depends on how you define a connection. For example you could redefine the minimum connection time as 30 minutes, this would greatly reduce the % of missed connections but wouldn't be an improvement from the passengers point of view.

Presumably you would use the same minimum connection times as given on the National Rail site, and which are used to judge valid connections for rail ticket sites and Delay Repay. These are already grossly inflated compared to the Swiss connection times.

 

[jon0844]

Timetabling that does not allow for a little operational flexibility in departures is always going to run the risk of alienating the paying customer.

But surely there is some tolerance for a train that is making stops along the way, where there might be a larger 'flow' of passengers. That's what you need to factor in for timetabling, not the time taken for a train to set off at the start where it's probably had at least 5 minutes for boarding, and probably a lot more.

I do think it might be possible to change the timetable to show a train as departing a minute earlier than it is due to, but only at the starting station. However, the entire industry would need to do it - and of course once people knew the score, they'd only expect to be let on between the reported departure time and the working timetable.. so nothing gained at all!

 

[A-driver]

How can there still be a debate about this doors closing 30secs early thing? How un organised can you be to possibly stress about 30seconds. It's been like this for ages and most punters don't have a problem with it as they can organise their lives.

Arguing over seconds is stupid anyway as it all then depends in whose watch/clock you use. If you cut it that fine to catch a train that 20-30secs is a problem then you have no sympathy from me! Its a train, not a taxi and it will not and should not wait for you-that just delays the hundreds of other oassengers who managed to board on time. Aim to be in the platform a minute before the train is due then there is no problem-even if that means you don't have time to wait in the que at the coffee stall.

If the majority of passengers missed trains because of this then it would be a point worth arguing and addressing but as 99% of passengers are able to get to the at form at least 30secs before their train is due its obviously not an issue and is purely a case of people waking up late, missing their train to work by seconds and blaming the railway for the bad start to their day!

 

[radamfi]

How can there still be a debate about this doors closing 30secs early thing? How un organised can you be to possibly stress about 30seconds. It's been like this for ages and most punters don't have a problem with it as they can organise their lives.

The 30 seconds thing is only possible if you don't care about connections, so it can be done in the UK. In the Netherlands and Switzerland in particular, and most other European countries to a degree, it isn't possible to do the 30 seconds thing unless you check that all connecting trains (and possibly buses) have arrived and passengers have had enough time to reach the train.

 

[A-driver]

The 30 seconds thing is only possible if you don't care about connections, so it can be done in the UK. In the Netherlands and Switzerland in particular, and most other European countries to a degree, it isn't possible to do the 30 seconds thing unless you check that all connecting trains (and possibly buses) have arrived and passengers have had enough time to reach the train.

Once again I stand by my original point-if you leave yourself a connection so short that 30secs will make a difference then you have no sympathy from me! 30secs could be lost in so many other ways such as a minor delay on the train in, waiting for someone infront of you at the doors getting off the train unloading a buggy/suitcases etc.

I can't see how shutting the doors a few secs early affects connections.

 

[EM2]

...you check that all connecting trains (and possibly buses) have arrived and passengers have had enough time to reach the train.

This confuses me. Are you saying that if any of those connections have not arrived, then the train is held until they all have?
So if one of them is twenty minutes down, it still waits?

 

[radamfi]

I can't see how shutting the doors a few secs early affects connections.

Let's say you have allowed 10 minutes for a connection, more than the minimum connection time for that particular station, but the train arrives so late that you arrive at the next train 9 minutes and 40 seconds later than the arrival time, then you will miss the train even though you allowed more than the minimum connection time.

 

[jon0844]

And that's when you'll be covered, so surely there's not a major problem? Besides the inconvenience of course.

 

[A-driver]

Let's say you have allowed 10 minutes for a connection, more than the minimum connection time for that particular station, but the train arrives so late that you arrive at the next train 9 minutes and 40 seconds later than the arrival time, then you will miss the train even though you allowed more than the minimum connection time.

Sorry but that argument misses my point and is just bad luck. If they shut the doors at departure time exactly and you arrived at the train 21secs later than in your scenario you would miss it again.

My point is that we are talking seconds here which really isn't a big deal. Leaving delays aside, 30 secs shouldn't cause problems with connections.

 

[radamfi]

This confuses me. Are you saying that if any of those connections have not arrived, then the train is held until they all have?
So if one of them is twenty minutes down, it still waits?

Not always, it depends on the circumstances. Swiss trains, for example, will almost always wait a few minutes for late running connections. I've been on a train in Germany that was 20 minutes late, and connecting branch line trains waited. But in general throughout Europe, a pragmatic view is taken. In general, a lower class of train will wait for a delayed higher class of train. Britain is probably unique in having a zero tolerance policy against holding connections. Even Ireland, which usually copies British practice, do hold connections and has dedicated shuttles, such as Limerick Junction to Limerick and Manulla Junction to Ballina.

To be honest, I think most British people are incapable of understanding continental connection policies due to the culture, so perhaps we are right to forget about connections and those who want a train service which caters for routes other than direct ones can emigrate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Leaving delays aside

You can't leave delays aside. Connections are (or at least should be) critical. The 30 seconds rule makes connections even harder to make.

 

[jon0844]

It's not so hard to hold a train if it doesn't have an issue with getting a path, and doesn't impact on a future service etc.

In the south east, I can't imagine many trains being able to be held for long before there will be big problems.

 

[radamfi]

It's not so hard to hold a train if it doesn't have an issue with getting a path, and doesn't impact on a future service etc.

In the south east, I can't imagine many trains being able to be held for long before there will be big problems.

The Netherlands is a very intensive rail network (highest population density in Europe except microstates and Malta) but their network is very dependent on connections. They have deliberately invested in making stations big enough to allow trains to arrive at stations simultaneously.

 

[The Planner]

I do think it might be possible to change the timetable to show a train as departing a minute earlier than it is due to, but only at the starting station. However, the entire industry would need to do it - and of course once people knew the score, they'd only expect to be let on between the reported departure time and the working timetable.. so nothing gained at all!

Nothing to stop this at all and it is done now at intermediate stations. Look at any WTT for a WCML train and see where the PTT departure is earlier than the WTT, this is to allow a clockface timetable and to also allow a train to depart earlier than WTT if it is possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Netherlands is a very intensive rail network (highest population density in Europe except microstates and Malta) but their network is very dependent on connections. They have deliberately invested in making stations big enough to allow trains to arrive at stations simultaneously.

To quote a page on the Network Rail intranet....

"Network Rail and the train operators run more trains across Great Britain than are run in most European countries - almost 20 per cent more than in France and 60 per cent more than in Italy. Great Britain's 24,000 trains per day figure is also more than Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Norway combined."

I think the UK is a tad more intensive than most.

 

[radamfi]

I think the UK is a tad more intensive than most.

But of course the UK rail network is highly distorted by trains to, from and within London and the SE, much of which is a captive market. I bet if you looked at statistics for trains in the rest of the country it wouldn't be so favourable when compared to places like the Netherlands and Switzerland.

 

[A-driver]

But of course the UK rail network is highly distorted by trains to, from and within London and the SE, much of which is a captive market. I bet if you looked at statistics for trains in the rest of the country it wouldn't be so favourable when compared to places like the Netherlands and Switzerland.

I think you will find that on less intense uk routes connections will be held, this is certainly often the case on very rural lines. It's far less common on intercity services as these all run through very busy hubs like London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester etc and holding it for 10 mins for a connection can have huge consequences later on-they won't cause delays to intercity and other related services just to let a dozen people make a connection.

Plus many other countries have the Infastructure to allow more flexibility-we don't. Trains in the uk share the same rails weather intercity, suburban, freight etc where as many other countries have dedicated lines for various traffic.

 

[radamfi]

Plus many other countries have the Infastructure to allow more flexibility-we don't.

So therefore it is possible to have a proper connecting rail network in the UK. We just haven't invested properly in our infrastructure to allow it. The Netherlands is a very urban country with most trains passing through major cities yet they maintain connections as a matter of course. They don't just hold connections in rural areas.

 

[jon0844]

In London, who needs to hold anything when another train is possibly just 15 or 30 minutes away? Perhaps for the last train(s) of the day, by which time there's a lot less usage on the lines.

Weekends are also possibly an exception and there might be an argument for delaying trains then too, as there has to be a lot more flexibility on the lines.

But TOCs will also need to manage stock differently, to ensure trains later on aren't delayed because the train hasn't turned up yet. That might mean operating more rolling stock and needing more drivers as many services are set to turn around very quickly.

Clearly there's a cost for this, which someone has to pay. That'll be you and me.

I bet if you asked someone if a train should be held they'd say yes. Then if you explained the logistics and the costs, they'd soon change their mind and think their money is probably spent better on something else.

 

[radamfi]

In London, who needs to hold anything when another train is possibly just 15 or 30 minutes away?

We are not really talking about trains in London. This discussion really refers to longer journeys involving connections between similarly important trains, or branch line connections off a main line.

To understand what I mean, go to www.ns.nl and you can put in virtually any long distance journey and see how long the connection times between trains are.

Take for example Amsterdam Centraal to Groningen. There are actually NO direct trains (for most of the day), which would be a scandal if it was in the UK! But if you look at the connection times offered, most of the time you are offered a 2 or 6 minute connection time in Almere and/or Zwolle, ridiculously short by UK standards for connections between Intercity services. So it doesn't really matter that the train isn't direct, you still get a quick journey time despite having to change once or twice.

You could also look at Schiphol to Leeuwarden, Rotterdam to Groningen etc. etc. The whole timetable is designed so you can go pretty much anywhere to anywhere without waiting a long time between trains.

I remember a timetable change leaflet from a couple of years ago apologising that the connection time for a particular journey was increasing to 8 minutes! They did point out that it was only temporary while works were going on.

 

[LE Greys]

Plus many other countries have the Infastructure to allow more flexibility-we don't. Trains in the uk share the same rails weather intercity, suburban, freight etc where as many other countries have dedicated lines for various traffic.

That is, of course, because our railways were built by private enterprise rather than centralised planning and were only nationalised at a time of declining traffic. The bodges of 'rationalisation' often didn't quite work, and nobody is going to disconnect certain routes no matter what benefit it might bring (well, unless a high-speed station muscles in on an areas).

Incidentally, having just seen an unfortunate woman with two young children miss the last train of the day at Euston on the BBC's Railways, I really think they should make an effort to get people out of booking offices and onto trains if its the last one of the day, even if it means issuing masses of UPFNs. This was a case where the train hadn't gone, but the doors were closed two minutes before departure and it couldn't be delayed because of engineering works.

 

[Squaddie]

This was a case where the train hadn't gone, but the doors were closed two minutes before departure and it couldn't be delayed because of engineering works.

Closing doors two minutes before departure is a ridiculous policy, and demonstrates the contempt with which the industry treats its customers. Two minutes is a very long time for a train to be sitting in the platform with its doors locked, preventing passengers from boarding. What's wrong with closing the doors 10 or even 5 seconds before departure, as in Switzerland and other countries?

 

[Dave1987]

Closing doors two minutes before departure is a ridiculous policy, and demonstrates the contempt with which the industry treats its customers. Two minutes is a very long time for a train to be sitting in the platform with its doors locked, preventing passengers from boarding. What's wrong with closing the doors 10 or even 5 seconds before departure, as in Switzerland and other countries?

Because the dispatch process takes around 30 seconds, so the train would leave late.

 

[Chris M]

30-40 seconds is acceptable as the passenger facing timetable is only accurate to 1 minute intervals.
90-120 seconds is not fair to the passenger. If the dispatch procedures take that long then there is something wrong with either the procedures or the train and it should be fixed.

Trains are not airlines, thank <deity of choice>. If a train is booked to leave at 10:00 and I turn up at 9:59:00 then I am on time and should be able to board. Wheels should start to roll between 09:59:30 and 10:00:30.

For comparison, an intercity train booked to arrive at 10:00 is on time if it arrives at 10:09:55, meaning that I missed my connecting train as I as advised I would need to allow only 5-7 minutes at most stations.

 

[Aictos]

30-40 seconds is acceptable as the passenger facing timetable is only accurate to 1 minute intervals.
90-120 seconds is not fair to the passenger. If the dispatch procedures take that long then there is something wrong with either the procedures or the train and it should be fixed.

Trains are not airlines, thank <deity of choice>. If a train is booked to leave at 10:00 and I turn up at 9:59:00 then I am on time and should be able to board. Wheels should start to roll between 09:59:30 and 10:00:30.

For comparison, an intercity train booked to arrive at 10:00 is on time if it arrives at 10:09:55, meaning that I missed my connecting train as I as advised I would need to allow only 5-7 minutes at most stations.

Wheels should start to roll from 09:59:30 to 10:00:00, also if a train booked to depart at 10:00:00 arrived at 09:59:55 it's now going to be late however if it was arriving at the terminating station it is quite rightly just about on time.

 

[radamfi]

Some people agree with running trains 30-120 seconds early, others don't. But one thing we can probably all agree with is that the only reason why they do it is to reduce financial penalties for delays. This practice didn't exist until a few years ago.

 

[jon0844]

FCC will aim to have the doors closed at nn : nn : 45 and wheels rolling on the minute.

For Intercity trains, especially newer stock that is air tight, I'd expect longer than 15 seconds. In fact, 30-60 seconds would sound about right. For one thing, the far longer trains might take longer to safely check as being clear.

Two minutes does seem unnecessarily long, but if that's a policy operated by a TOC and is always consistent (and that means not bending the rules on occasion, as that only causes problems when people want to know why the rules are being broken for some and not others) then it isn't the end of the world because everyone should know (and that means being told when buying the tickets, even on a TVM which could easily pop up key information to customers like this before the ticket is sold).

I would say that any TOC that has such a strict policy in place should have to provide ATOC with that data and any connections are recalculated as required. It might well make connections longer, which could then encourage the industry to work together to timetable things more effectively.