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!
That's great to hear and shows this can, and sometimes does happen.
This is an example of what I was saying earlier; people are deterred from travelling by train (at least for indirect journeys) due to such outcomes. One of the reasons why some people are very reluctant to undertake journeys that involve a change of trains is due to the lack of care taken by the rail industry in terms of maintaining connections, even in instances where the connection is cross-platform, infrequent, and is then missed by a matter of just a few seconds. There is nothing more infuriating to passengers than that, and yet the rail industry considers it to be perfectly acceptable, even in instances where waiting a few seconds would demonstrably have no negative effect further down the line. It's madness.
I seem to recall seeing in an old document (Working Time Table?) a note to the effect of 'train may be held for up to n minutes' to connect with xx train'.
I used to routinely travel between Stroud and destinations via Birmingham. I got fed up with the 'connections' at Cheltenham coming home having left (understandably) to connect at Swindon for London- many more of them than me. I 'converted' to driving to and parking at Cheltenham Spa station.
The problem here is that we're not using the term "legitimate" to mean the same thing, which is why I put the word in quotation marks in my previous post. As you say, you're taking the customer's point of view and appear to be using the term as a synonym for "reasonable".
As we all know (myself included), delay attribution is the biggest bane of the railway, both for customers and staff. The problem is that it is integral to the structure of the railways themselves and has become so baked-in that we cannot escape it's tentacles at any level. Delay attribution penalises late running, ensuring that companies that are disadvantaged by the poor performance of a third party can be compensated. In this specific instance, SWR would not be able to attribute the late departure of the Aldershot train to anyone else, and so any performance penalty coming as a result would be theirs alone. In this regard, delay attribution legitimises an on-time departure in spite of the circumstances.
Quite. I have never said that this wasn't poor service, nor have I attempted to excuse it. However, there are mechanisms that place pressure on traincrew to act in certain ways in certain situations and, just sometimes, to take decisions that result in poor service. It's not great and only the most sadistic would get any pleasure from it, but unfortunately there are times when we're over a barrel.
I've been in this situation myself, when I had to leave before a delayed RRB arrived. I didn't like having to do it, but there was no way to know where the bus was and how much longer it might take to arrive, plus there would be passengers waiting at stops further up the line (hence my original question asking just who the customer is and how do we decide which customers we're meant to inconvenience when the choice for one will be a choice against the other).
In Australia I have seen people running for a departing Intercity train at Central and every single time the guard has unlocked the doors and let them on, and with a very pleasant grace too. The train then makes up time again very quickly.
The fact the guard watched them run across the bridge at Ascot and then closed the doors bang on thirty seconds before departure really just strikes me as smug and deliberately nasty.
However, I've also been late for a connection at Ascot, with my 450 from Aldershot arriving 10L due to door faults, and mercifully they held the replacement bus service to Reading at Ascot which meant I didn't miss my CrossCountry connection to Sheffield.
To be clear I’d be a lot less upset for a missed connection at 17:30 or even, given the knock-on effects down the line, not being held if my arriving train had been so late that the connection was just tail lights in the distance.
Looking at RTT, it looks like the train departed RT. It’s a difficult one. Unfortunately had the guard waited, he would likely have departed late and got a letter/email from performance asking for an explanation. At least at the TOCs I’ve worked at, holding a train like this requires authorisation from control.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Im not sure this is exclusively a British thing. I’ve missed many connections in Europe and Asia over the years, when my origional train ran late. I would put it down to an unfortunate fact of life.
Easily answered by the simple reply of "the train from X was running late and people were flinging themselves at my train so I waited until I was certain the Platform Train Interface was clear for the train to depart safely".
Use it regularly myself. I won't depart with people running at my train.
I have to say I had a rather positive experience with SWR on a similar occasion, when a Basingstoke -Salisbury shuttle was held for 3 or so mins to allow for passengers connecting off a delayed 2LXX into Basingstoke.
So have I. Once GWR and SWR worked together to hold an Exeter St Davids to Salisbury service for 2 minutes due to a delay on an inbound from Truro. Yet I've seen two shockers - once Avanti guard announcing connection will be held at Chester on the adjacent platform but it was dispatched while people were alighting, and secondly Greater Anglia dispatching a London Liverpool Street service at Southend Victoria as the connecting shuttle bus from the Garon Park cricket ground was arriving.
So, while there may be some system factors at play, based on variation in outcome in different situations, in these 3 and indeed a wider range of situations experienced across and indeed within numerous TOCs, I would say that the greatest factor is likely to be individual variation in terms of how individuals handle the situation - after all, some people are more helpful than others, in all walks of life.
The problem here is that we're not using the term "legitimate" to mean the same thing, which is why I put the word in quotation marks in my previous post. As you say, you're taking the customer's point of view and appear to be using the term as a synonym for "reasonable".
Yes, you do like debating semantics; another good example would be where the railway charges people in a manner that is not legitimate but individual staff may be following instructions (so acting legitimately from an employment perspective), but that doesn't make it so.
As we all know (myself included), delay attribution is the biggest bane of the railway, both for customers and staff. The problem is that it is integral to the structure of the railways themselves and has become so baked-in that we cannot escape it's tentacles at any level. Delay attribution penalises late running, ensuring that companies that are disadvantaged by the poor performance of a third party can be compensated. In this specific instance, SWR would not be able to attribute the late departure of the Aldershot train to anyone else, and so any performance penalty coming as a result would be theirs alone. In this regard, delay attribution legitimises an on-time departure in spite of the circumstances.
I'm not quote sure how comments such as "Is it good customer service to delay a train, causing it to miss its slot at a busy interchange or causing knock-on delays to other services?" are meant to be interpreted; it's another argument over semantics. It's misplaced though as there was no further risk of connections being missed.
However, there are mechanisms that place pressure on traincrew to act in certain ways in certain situations and, just sometimes, to take decisions that result in poor service. It's not great and only the most sadistic would get any pleasure from it, but unfortunately there are times when we're over a barrel.
If you agree that the structure of the railway network is inappropriate, join us in calling it out, instead of saying cryptic messages which appear to be defending the indefensible (and then getting into a debate about semantics and what exactly is meant)
I've been in this situation myself, when I had to leave before a delayed RRB arrived. I didn't like having to do it, but there was no way to know where the bus was and how much longer it might take to arrive, plus there would be passengers waiting at stops further up the line (hence my original question asking just who the customer is and how do we decide which customers we're meant to inconvenience when the choice for one will be a choice against the other).
Indeed of course not, as I said earlier. However the impression is that such people are often sticking their neck on the line to go against the grain, and that the industry as a whole isn't really putting passengers first overall. At best, it's patchy. Yes in some places on the network there are consistent policies which are pragmatic in nature, but these tend to be very much the exception to the rule.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Easily answered by the simple reply of "the train from X was running late and people were flinging themselves at my train so I waited until I was certain the Platform Train Interface was clear for the train to depart safely".
Use it regularly myself. I won't depart with people running at my train.
Brilliant, again more evidence that there are good people around in these positions to make a difference to passengers, and that the indefensible doesn't have to be rigerously defended!
It is fair to say that railway workers, rather unnecessarily, live in fear of being asked about a delay, for reasons that are largely not really true.
I've always taken the view that I hold a responsible job and my actions and decisions can cause significant consequences both financially for the business and for customers.
Consequently I never mind accounting for myself and provided my decision making has been sound and justified I can honestly say I have never had a cross word said to me by a manager or controller over a train delay.
A short "why were you late here please?" is easily answerable in a sentence or two generally and that's the end of the matter.
It's entirely justified not to dispatch a train that you know people are going to be running for in large numbers. If they have no chance of making it, fair enough, unless instructed otherwise - but if they're practically banging on the door then it makes no sense to leave them there through no fault of their own, or from a safety perspective.
Not all parts of the system are as bad as this Ascot example. At my local station of Lewes, the Brighton-Seaford service is often held for a late running London-Eastbourne service so that the connection is protected.
It is fair to say that railway workers, rather unnecessarily, live in fear of being asked about a delay, for reasons that are largely not really true.
I've always taken the view that I hold a responsible job and my actions and decisions can cause significant consequences both financially for the business and for customers.
Consequently I never mind accounting for myself and provided my decision making has been sound and justified I can honestly say I have never had a cross word said to me by a manager or controller over a train delay.
A short "why were you late here please?" is easily answerable in a sentence or two generally and that's the end of the matter.
It's entirely justified not to dispatch a train that you know people are going to be running for in large numbers. If they have no chance of making it, fair enough, unless instructed otherwise - but if they're practically banging on the door then it makes no sense to leave them there through no fault of their own, or from a safety perspective.
Sounds like a good example of why you need a delay attribution process. Otherwise you have low level (no insult intended) staff making decisions that could have impacts they don't even realise.
It is fair to say that railway workers, rather unnecessarily, live in fear of being asked about a delay, for reasons that are largely not really true.
I've always taken the view that I hold a responsible job and my actions and decisions can cause significant consequences both financially for the business and for customers.
Consequently I never mind accounting for myself and provided my decision making has been sound and justified I can honestly say I have never had a cross word said to me by a manager or controller over a train delay.
A short "why were you late here please?" is easily answerable in a sentence or two generally and that's the end of the matter.
It's entirely justified not to dispatch a train that you know people are going to be running for in large numbers. If they have no chance of making it, fair enough, unless instructed otherwise - but if they're practically banging on the door then it makes no sense to leave them there through no fault of their own, or from a safety perspective.
Indeed, at least being late in the UK won't face the Japanese style of bombardment for lateness.
To be fair, the delay matrix should not just only count on late train times, but also passenger lost minutes for any missed connections or late on trains.
I'm not quote sure how comments such as "Is it good customer service to delay a train, causing it to miss its slot at a busy interchange or causing knock-on delays to other services?" are meant to be interpreted; it's another argument over semantics. It's misplaced though as there was no further risk of connections being missed.
There are two threads to my contributions in this post; this specific incident (which I do not contest), and the wider situation. The comment you have quoted is addressing the second of these.
I disagree. While there are aspects of the privatised railway that impact on customer service, this instance wasn’t one of them. Quite simply I was between a rock and a hard place and, whatever choice I made, I was going to give poor service to someone. There was no way that I could wait for the RRB and be on time for the passengers waiting along the route.
If you agree that the structure of the railway network is inappropriate, join us in calling it out, instead of saying cryptic messages which appear to be defending the indefensible (and then getting into a debate about semantics and what exactly is meant)
For over a decade I have been highlighting the problem with things like delay attribution and saying that the relationships between government and industry bodies needs changing, as my posting history will witness. You have even praised my statements on these matters in the past. I have stated several times that I have not excused what happened at Ascot, so I’m unsure why you think I’ve been defending it.
Easily answered by the simple reply of "the train from X was running late and people were flinging themselves at my train so I waited until I was certain the Platform Train Interface was clear for the train to depart safely".
Use it regularly myself. I won't depart with people running at my train.
I have to say for me, it can be a hard call to make. I’ve certainly been pulled upstairs before for marking a decision to hold my train, and been reminded that, had I departed on time, I would not have had any late runners close to my train. Indeed when I was a newly passed out guard years ago, I held a train for what I thought was one or two late runners. This turned into a cavalcade of passengers, one of which tripped and injured themselves running for the train. We ended up leaving 10 late, and I must have had 15 plus passengers that then ended up missing their connections.
Yes indeed, when I was in Japan, I missed several rural connections that made me an hour late in similar circumstances. When I lived in the Netherlands and Ireland I also experienced this too. I’m not saying it’s right particularly, but it’s certainly not just a Uk experience. I would agree that delay attribution is a bit of a nonsense system.
Easily answered by the simple reply of "the train from X was running late and people were flinging themselves at my train so I waited until I was certain the Platform Train Interface was clear for the train to depart safely".
Use it regularly myself. I won't depart with people running at my train.
And this is the correct answer. Great to see, too.
I’m more concerned with a guard slamming the door in people’s faces from a safety perspective, to be quite honest. If people are running for a train I don’t know how you can consider the PTI clear. It only takes one person to stumble.
Normally I'd say that connections can't always be held and something that's inconvenient for the people trying to make the connection, but there's also people on board the connecting train trying to get to their destination and it's a complex railway.
But this was a Sunday set of engineering works, with an hourly service and a little shuttle (with decent turnaround time and performance time in schedule) and no other conflicts en route. It would have done no harm. The guard might not know all this as part of their diagram, but a minute or two would have been fine and they should have been at least vaguely aware of the circumstances of the connections. Who knows, another guard might have been more proactive and held the train for one minute.
Even when (or if - 2 minutes won't mean much) the delay report comes in, the guard could just state "considerable number of connecting passengers" and that will be the end of the matter, it really wouldn't go much further. It would have to be more than 3 minutes to be remotely noticable.
It used to annoy me at Brockenhurst when a tight connection off a slightly-late Cross-Country train was missed. The defence would be that it connected with the ferry at Lymington and thus in turn the bus from Yarmouth to Freshwater.
The Lymington train pulled out whilst we sat in the platform staring at it. Without the ridiculous SWR door routine, and snail like Siemens doors, we might have made it.
Easily answered by the simple reply of "the train from X was running late and people were flinging themselves at my train so I waited until I was certain the Platform Train Interface was clear for the train to depart safely".
Use it regularly myself. I won't depart with people running at my train.
Indeed. If you're working by yourself and can literally see people rushing towards your train, it's impossible to understand how you could be satisfied that it's safe to start really.
'Delay attribution'- a mechanism that drives behaviour. 'What gets measured gets done'; what's not measured 'doesn't count'.
It has become more important to be able to lay 'blame' and 'who will/should pay.
Something 'goes wrong', it's 'someone's' fault.
I'm with Yorkie and others on this one- so much for 'customer focus', which needs support and encouragement from 'above', not punishment.
'On the buses' with Reg Varney and 'Blakie'- part of the driver training to pull away just as the running for the bus person so very nearly got a hold on the pole
this happened regularly at crewe, our train due to arrive at 2056, our bus due to depart at 2106, train a couple or so mins late, and the bus conductor was standing with his finger on the button, so just as we came out of the station doors ding ding...
Working to the rules explicitly - yet no common sense, or being allowed to use it. Great example of the railway not being run for the benefit of passengers.
Did the Aldershot train leave early; i.e. before 18.13? (or 18.12 1/2). If it left before time then surely SWR are in the wrong (?)
The best thing in this situation is "control" to make the decision and send a message to the guard. I appreciate in some situations this wouldn't work, they're busy or the train gets delayed at the last minute.
It does happen sometimes - I saw recently that Chiltern held a Oxford-London at Princes Risborough for 8 minutes awaiting a late running service in from Aylesbury. This would have needed some checking of what the unit and driver were doing next and what was behind it etc.
Though I've had the opposite occur, the Aylesbury shuttle has pulled out of the bay on time when we've all been coming over the bridge, despite it being published policy to hold it for 10 mins and it not being a time of day where the workings are too tight to permit this. tbf to Chiltern they did put us all in taxis
The best thing in this situation is "control" to make the decision and send a message to the guard. I appreciate in some situations this wouldn't work, they're busy or the train gets delayed at the last minute.
It does happen sometimes - I saw recently that Chiltern held a Oxford-London at Princes Risborough for 8 minutes awaiting a late running service in from Aylesbury. This would have needed some checking of what the unit and driver were doing next and what was behind it etc.
Though I've had the opposite occur, the Aylesbury shuttle has pulled out of the bay on time when we've all been coming over the bridge, despite it being published policy to hold it for 10 mins and it not being a time of day where the workings are too tight to permit this. tbf to Chiltern they did put us all in taxis
Then they should amend their policies so that guards know that certain connections they have standing authority to hold for if the train is literally in the station.
Looking at RTT, it looks like the train departed RT. It’s a difficult one. Unfortunately had the guard waited, he would likely have departed late and got a letter/email from performance asking for an explanation. At least at the TOCs I’ve worked at, holding a train like this requires authorisation from control.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Im not sure this is exclusively a British thing. I’ve missed many connections in Europe and Asia over the years, when my origional train ran late. I would put it down to an unfortunate fact of life.
You don't need authorisation. If someone asks for a please explain, you reply with "several people boarding train from late running service - not safe to dispatch". It's different if the other train wouldn't have arrived at the train question booked departure time. Then holding it without any reason would need authorisation.
I've been in this situation myself, when I had to leave before a delayed RRB arrived. I didn't like having to do it, but there was no way to know where the bus was and how much longer it might take to arrive, plus there would be passengers waiting at stops further up the line (hence my original question asking just who the customer is and how do we decide which customers we're meant to inconvenience when the choice for one will be a choice against the other).
I had that with a RRB at Wokingham recently. Bus a few minutes late on the schedule and pulls up just as the train departs. Cue 29min wait for the next train and, yes, just as the next bus arrives a few minutes late.
When I asked the station staff why they didn't wait, I was told "they're not designed to connect". Well, they are, otherwise why time them like that? They obviously were designed to connect, as my Delay Repay claim was paid!
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.
