Specifying additional connection time - how should this work?

[blimmo]

The default MCTs are perfectly fine in most circumstances. There are a few I'd tweak, but remember a key part of the MCT is that it forms part of the railway's contractual promise to the passenger about their journey when selling tickets against itineraries. If you make York 4 minutes MCT because you can power walk the entire station then this makes every connection extremely fine and the railway will be on the hook for a lot more compensation for extremely minor delays to individual trains. All this to satisfy mostly able bodied men who are power users? Um, no.

I agree that most MCTs are fine, my problem is if they start getting made longer to cater for people who find them stressful. I also think the cost (in journey time and therefore custom) of MCTs that are too long is often underestimated. An overly generous MCT causing the journey planner to dismiss a perfectly reasonable hourly connection can easily convince someone to switch to the car.

 

[Haywain]

An overly generous MCT causing the journey planner to dismiss a perfectly reasonable hourly connection can easily convince someone to switch to the car.

As could a shorter MCT causing someone to miss an hourly connection.

 

[blimmo]

As could a shorter MCT causing someone to miss an hourly connection.

Which is why you have to ask the traveller how much risk they're willing to take / how much they're willing to rush!

 

[AlterEgo]

Which is why you have to ask the traveller how much risk they're willing to take / how much they're willing to rush!

Never going to be acceptable to the industry which has obligations on compensation and accommodation etc if you miss it.

 

[Hadders]

I agree that most MCTs are fine

Agreed. There are some cross-London MCTs that do need looking at but these are a samll minority. A bizarre one is the absence of an official connection between Finsbury Park and Vauxhall.

my problem is if they start getting made longer to cater for people who find them stressful

I assume this comment is aimed at me given I've said in this thread (and other similar ones) that many people find travelling by train an anxious experience.

For the avoidance of doubt I do not want minimum connection times to be made longer and, with a few exceptions they are about right. What I will point out again is:

• Minimum Connection Times have to be set so that they can be achieved by the majority of the travelling public
• Whilst there should be a better facility for additional time to be specified in journey planners, the vast majority of people should be able to rely on the default minimum connection time
• Minimum connection times should not rely on being at a particular set of train doors, running across a station, up or down escalators etc. Yes, some people might be able to do this but it should not be expected or relied upon in journey planners
• 'Us' on here are experts in train travel. Don't underestimate the anxiety that many normal people suffer when they travel by train. Whether it be the risk of being 'fined' for having the wrong ticket, what happens if I miss my train, will I get a seat etc etc. Many people think minimum connection times are too short - I don't agree but I do understand why some people think like this.

Have you got any evidence that minimum connection times have been made longer? I can't think of any.

I also think the cost (in journey time and therefore custom) of MCTs that are too long is often underestimated. An overly generous MCT causing the journey planner to dismiss a perfectly reasonable hourly connection can easily convince someone to switch to the car.

Can you give some examples of where you think MCTs are too long? I think Kings Cross to Waterloo at 53 minutes is a bit too long, especially compared to Kings Cross to Victoria at 41 minutes, but Kings Cross to Waterloo does involve a change from Victoria to Bakerloo Lines which probably explains the additional time.

 

[Haywain]

Kings Cross to Waterloo does involve a change from Victoria to Bakerloo Lines which probably explains the additional time.

I think we also have to recognise that not everybody will use what we think is the obvious route, so might need more time because of that.

 

[Hadders]

I think we also have to recognise that not everybody will use what we think is the obvious route, so might need more time because of that.

Agreed. You only need to look at the number of times we get asked that question on this forum, which will be a tiny number of overall people making that connection.