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.

 

[JBuchananGB]

Slightly off topic, but my main gripe on connection times is the MCT between Wigan Wallgate and Wigan North Western which means that a connection achievable by a normal able-bodied person from an arrival at the former to a departure at the latter, e.g. arrive WGW (from Southport) at 12.03, depart WGN 12.13 is not allowed. (MCT is 11 minutes) Instead to catch the 12.13 service to London, it is necessary to arrive at WGW at 11.35 and wait over 30 minutes.
Today the 12.03 arrival was 2 minutes late, but then again the 12.13 departure was 7 minutes late.
Even with the half-hour wait, this is still a very quick way from Southport to London, just 3h10m, but it could be quicker!

 

[tumbledown]

is not allowed

Is not allowed in what sense? You don't have to buy tickets against an itinerary, and if multiple tickets are involved you can buy them separately to accomodate your quicker connection time.

 

[Hadders]

Is not allowed in what sense? You don't have to buy tickets against an itinerary, and if multiple tickets are involved you can buy them separately to accomodate your quicker connection time.

If you're using a flexible ticket then the minimum connection time doesn't really matter.
But if you're using Advance tickets, where you are required to travel on the specified booked train, you could purchase separate tickets to obtain connection time below the official minimum but in the event of a delay, which caused you to miss your connection, then you wouldn't be allowed to travel on a later train.

Also, before someone else points it out, you can only claim delay repay if your itinerary complies with the relevent minimum connection times where you change trains.

 

[blimmo]

Can you give some examples of where you think MCTs are too long?

Anything involving approaching Liverpool Street on the circle line from the West going into the mainline platforms. I'm specifically thinking of Euston to Liverpool Street but I assume it applies to kings cross st pancras and probably farringdon? 15 mins to go between those platforms (which only involves about 10 steps) is frankly ridiculous.

If you're using a flexible ticket then the minimum connection time doesn't really matter.
But if you're using Advance tickets, where you are required to travel on the specified booked train, you could purchase separate tickets to obtain connection time below the official minimum but in the event of a delay, which caused you to miss your connection, then you wouldn't be allowed to travel on a later train.

This is exactly my problem. Being forced to watch a train that could get you to your destination an hour earlier (I am connecting into a branch line train that is hourly) leave without you because your ticket isn't valid on it is frustrating to say the least.

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

Perhaps an alternative would be to make advance tickets also valid on earlier services on connecting legs.

 

[SaltAndVinegar]

Perhaps an alternative would be to make advance tickets also valid on earlier services on connecting legs.

They generally already are.

 

[yorkie]

Yeah that's already broken really, because the National Rail website lets you specify 120 minutes, but for the journey I chose (Chester to Hawarden Bridge changing at Shotton) it defaulted to Transport for Wales as the operator.

When I clicked the button to buy tickets, it took me to the TfW website with a blank search form, effectively starting me from scratch. The TfW website allows 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, 60, not 120 (though you can fudge that one by changing `interchange_adjustment_time` in the POST request body )

Most retailers don't automatically trust NRE itineraries.

Someone here could probably list the TOCs that do, but by far the most effective way to buy a ticket in conjunction with a customised itinerary is to use a Trainsplit powered site (such as the forum's ticketing site).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 08:09 ==

Perhaps an alternative would be to make advance tickets also valid on earlier services on connecting legs.

Arguably '& connections ' tickets already are, but yes the rules should be clearly stated to be in passengers favour, as it's not always clear and obvious.

Until / unless it is made clearer, I would strongly recommend people obtain the itinerary they wish to follow before making a purchase, to avoid any such doubts.

 

[blimmo]

They generally already are.

Not across London in my experience. Which is when it's most important since (some of) the cross London connection times are the most inflated.

 

[Coleridge]

Being forced to watch a train that could get you to your destination an hour earlier (I am connecting into a branch line train that is hourly) leave without you because your ticket isn't valid on it is frustrating to say the least.

You could argue that this is the price you pay for the saving you made by buying an Advance ticket: if you had a more flexible ticket, that train wouldn't have to leave without you.

It's not an ideal, nor customer-friendly, situation, of course, but that's typical of the appalling rail system that we have in the UK.

 

[Hadders]

Anything involving approaching Liverpool Street on the circle line from the West going into the mainline platforms. I'm specifically thinking of Euston to Liverpool Street but I assume it applies to kings cross st pancras and probably farringdon? 15 mins to go between those platforms (which only involves about 10 steps) is frankly ridiculous.

Let's look at Euston to Liverpool Street. Current minimum connection time is 43 minutes consisting of:

Euston station connection time 15 minutes
Euston to Liverpool Street 13 minutes
Liverpool Street connection time 15 minutes

Euston Square to Liverpool Street takes 10 minutes on the Met/Circle/H&C during the day there seems to be a train at least every three minutes.
The walk from the train to Euston Square Underground station needs to be considered. The connection time has to consider that you might alight the train from the north end of an 11 car Pendolino on platform 1 and have to walk along the platform, up the ramp and across the concourse. Then negotiate the Euston Square Gardens and cross Melton Street before walking along Euston Road to the underground station. No running, wait for the pedestrian crossing to go green before crossing the road! I don't think there's any slack in the 15 minutes at Euston.

You might strike lucky with a train pulling in as you arrive on the platform. On the other hand you might arrive just as the doors close and have to wait three minutes. So 13 minutes for that component is appropriate.

The question is whether the 15 minutes at Liverpool Street too long? From the Met/Circle/H&C it doesn't take 15 minutes if you know where you're going. But the interchange time also has to take into account someone who ight be using the Central Line or Elizabeth Line where it takes much longer. The minimum time should not require you to walk or run up and down escalators.

You can do Euston to Liverpool Street in under half an hour, if everythihg goes well. But I'm not convinced that should be the default. I'd expect most 'normal' passengers to take about 30-35 minutes meaning 43 minutes is about right.

Perhaps an alternative would be to make advance tickets also valid on earlier services on connecting legs.

I agree, although there would need to be clear guidance on what a connecting leg is. Ideally connecting legs would not have reservations allowing an appropriate train to be taken, but that could have other unintended consequences.

They generally already are.

Many trains that historically did not have reservations now have them to enable Advance tickets to be sold for local journeys on those trains. This then has the unintended consequence of producing a 'mandatory reservation' for the connecting service.

 

[hkstudent]

Let's look at Euston to Liverpool Street. Current minimum connection time is 43 minutes consisting of:

Euston station connection time 15 minutes
Euston to Liverpool Street 13 minutes
Liverpool Street connection time 15 minutes

Euston Square to Liverpool Street takes 10 minutes on the Met/Circle/H&C during the day there seems to be a train at least every three minutes.
The walk from the train to Euston Square Underground station needs to be considered. The connection time has to consider that you might alight the train from the north end of an 11 car Pendolino on platform 1 and have to walk along the platform, up the ramp and across the concourse. Then negotiate the Euston Square Gardens and cross Melton Street before walking along Euston Road to the underground station. No running, wait for the pedestrian crossing to go green before crossing the road! I don't think there's any slack in the 15 minutes at Euston.

You might strike lucky with a train pulling in as you arrive on the platform. On the other hand you might arrive just as the doors close and have to wait three minutes. So 13 minutes for that component is appropriate.

The question is whether the 15 minutes at Liverpool Street too long? From the Met/Circle/H&C it doesn't take 15 minutes if you know where you're going. But the interchange time also has to take into account someone who ight be using the Central Line or Elizabeth Line where it takes much longer. The minimum time should not require you to walk or run up and down escalators.

You can do Euston to Liverpool Street in under half an hour, if everythihg goes well. But I'm not convinced that should be the default. I'd expect most 'normal' passengers to take about 30-35 minutes meaning 43 minutes is about right.


I agree, although there would need to be clear guidance on what a connecting leg is. Ideally connecting legs would not have reservations allowing an appropriate train to be taken, but that could have other unintended consequences.


Many trains that historically did not have reservations now have them to enable Advance tickets to be sold for local journeys on those trains. This then has the unintended consequence of producing a 'mandatory reservation' for the connecting service.

I actually beg to differ to the case.

As many people now rely on Journey Planners like CityMapper and Google Map to plan the journeys, and the connection time are far less than the MCT set in NR journey planners.

For example, a Watford Junction to Chelmsford case, Cityplanner would say the interchange time between Euston NR and Liverpool Street NR is 27 minutes (door to door). With the details:
From NR train to tube is 6 minute, then tube journey time of 8 minutes (NOR) and 2 minutes (MET),
plus interchange time within Moorgate (2 mins) and Liverpool Street LU <> NR (2 mins).

If NR journey planner is too drift away from the number most people relies on, it won't be useful.

15 minutes each at each of London terminal is far too excessive, especially when compare with European counterpart, Zurich Hbf and Berlin Hbf which consists of more than 3 storeys can comfortably set the interchange time be 7 minutes.
That's even more silly for King Cross - St Pancras interchange be 21 minutes or Waterloo East - Waterloo interchange be 20 minutes, with people just needing around 10 minutes to do that.

We shouldn't try to penalise people who can make city-pace for doing interchanges, as if connection time is too long, may end up people waiting for the next train which is often making the journey not viable (e.g. those hourly intercity trains).

 

[Haywain]

We shouldn't try to penalise people who can make city-pace for doing interchanges,

No one is being penalised - you can buy tickets and do that if you wish. However, the railway is not prepared to be contractually bound to compensate you if the connection fails and so you must make a choice accordingly.

 

[SargeNpton]

I actually beg to differ to the case.

As many people now rely on Journey Planners like CityMapper and Google Map to plan the journeys, and the connection time are far less than the MCT set in NR journey planners.

The values set in the rail industry's journey planners are the definitive values if you want to plan an itinerary and book tickets. If you try to get around those by taking the results from outside sources then you will lose out on any compensation claims should you miss a connection.

Some values are altered over time where conditions dictate, and where all the relevant parties agree to make a change. If you think you know better than the professionals then by all means take a job in one of the companies that help to formulate the data for retail systems.

 

[Coleridge]

As many people now rely on Journey Planners like CityMapper and Google Map to plan the journeys, and the connection time are far less than the MCT set in NR journey planners.

You can plan a journey using those tools, but they will not sell you an itinerary for your planned journey.

 

[redreni]

I'll probably never get over how many people seem to take the view that the MCTs are about right when they're so inconsistent. You would think everybody would agree that they need to be reviewed.

It doesn't matter if you want MCTs to be really tight or you want them to have plenty of padding to accommodate slow people (who should be specifying that they want extra time but instead insist on making everybody else's journey slower); you still can't sensibly maintain that these two MCTs are both right:

• St Pancras to Kings Cross: 31 minutes.
• Whitechapel to Fenchurch Street: 27 minutes.

In no universe can those things both be sensible at the same time. These connections need to be timed and a consistent safety margin added to cover people being slow (within reason) and alighting at the wrong end of the train.

I do agree with the premise of the question that it should be easier for those who need more time to make their connection to request it when they consult a journey planner or make a booking. It should also be made clear that if your walking speed is significantly slower than average then you should avail yourself of that option, otherwise the railway will not be responsible if you miss your connection.

In my opinion the main reason it doesn't change is because most MCTs, including the ones that are most heavily used, are way longer than they need to be and this kills most delay repay claims for cross-London journeys. It sounds nice to say you're thinking of the confused old ladies with suitcases, but actually the fact you can be 35 minutes late into Kings Cross and still be deemed less than 15 minutes late by the time you've made connections at St Pancras and Farringdon, such is the difference between the MCT and the time it actually takes to make the connections, does save a lot of money for the TOCs / DfT.

 

[SargeNpton]

It doesn't matter if you want MCTs to be really tight or you want them to have plenty of padding to accommodate slow people (who should be specifying that they want extra time but instead insist on making everybody else's journey slower); you still can't sensibly maintain that these two MCTs are both right:

• St Pancras to Kings Cross: 31 minutes.
• Whitechapel to Fenchurch Street: 27 minutes.

With the data standards currently in use, 31 minutes is the lowest time that can be quoted for a St Pancras-Kings Cross connection.

As previously mentioned, those standards date back to 1992, and won't change until someone with a large budget is prepared to redo journey planning from scratch.