Unrealistic interchange times.

[lawried123]

I was just looking at planning a journey for some relatives staying with me from Twyford to Basildon. As the National rail website gave a ridiculous walking time of 4 mins from Liverpool Street to Fenchurch St, I then looked at the forums site, assuming that would be more realistic.
A journey leaving at 1534 gave a connection from the Elizabeth line arrival at Whitechapel at 1640 onto a 1657 departure from Fenchurch St using tube to Fenchurch Street by which I assume they mean Tower Hill. Obviously this means walk between lines at Whitechapel and tube to Tower Hill then walk.
Does anyone else agree with me that this is a totally unrealistic connection and I'm a bit puzzled as to why the website could give a connection that no-one would be likely to achieve.

Lawrie

 

[jfollows]

The minimum connection time Liverpool Street-Fenchurch Street is 15+4+7=26 minutes, the individual station connection times need to be added to the 4 minutes walking time. This is the time a rail planning/ticket buying site should use to construct a valid itinerary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jan 2025 ==

Whitechapel to Fenchurch Street should be at least 5+5+7=17 minutes depending on time of day (more than this outside 7am-7pm). See https://www.brtimes.com/!board?stn=ZLW&show=info&date=20250123
By tube after 5:30am, yes.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is a function of the timings allowed within the industry data rather than specific websites. They have to use the data given to them by the industry to determine the minimum interchanges. For Whitechapel to Fenchurch Street you have to allow five minutes for the interchange at Whitechapel, then the fixed link for the Tube journey which is at that time of day five minutes, then the interchange time at Fenchurch Street itself of seven minutes giving a total of seventeen minutes.

The sites are therefore offering a valid itinerary for the 1534 from Twyford changing at Whitechapel onto the 1647 from Fenchurch Street. That being said I do agree I reckon it's a bit tight!

That being said you can force the Forum site to offer more interchange time by using the advanced options (the cog) one of them it to allow extra interchange time on top of the minimum. Here is a Twyford to Basildon journey with ten extra minutes allowed which I think gives a slightly more realistic itinerary onto the 1719 from Fenchurch Street. That being said it would appear the fares being offered are Anytime Day Singles so of course you can travel on any train anyway.

 

[mm333]

The interchange time at Doncaster is 7 minutes and wasn’t extended when they opened platform 0. Going from the back of a train at p0 with luggage to platform 5 is going to have 4 lifts and a lot of walking to do.

 

[redreni]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why the website could give a connection that no-one would be likely to achieve.

I don't think I agree that no-one would be likely to achieve that connection.

I quite agree not everyone would be assured of making it.

I do think the MCTs and transfer times in London need looking at, because apart from anything else, they result in preposterous routes being offered because of the lack of any relationship between the interchange times journey planners have to allow, and what might reasonably be expected in reality. The non-existence of certain fixed links also causes journey planners not to offer the best route.

E.g. transferring from a westbound EL train to a northbound intercity train from Kings Cross, journey planners always tell you to alight at Liverpool Street and take the tube from there, even though it is far quicker to alight at Farringdon and take the tube or Thameslink from there, because there is no fixed link between Farringdon and Kings Cross and the MCTs, if using the timetabled Thameslink service, are absurd (8+15+1+15 = 39 minutes not including the timetabled journey time from Farringdon to St Pancras). I'd be pretty confident of alighting at Farringdon, transferring to the Northbound Thameslink, alighting at St Pancras, exiting and walking to Kings Cross in less time than it takes to get to Fenchurch Street after alighting from the eastbound EL at Whitechapel.

So yes, there are some MCTs and transfer times that should be lengthened (another couple of minutes for transferring between EL and District Line at Whitechapel and another couple of minutes for the transfer from Whitechapel to Fenchurch Street would surely be appropriate), but equally there are some that are absurdly long. For those familiar with the route they're being offered, one can of course specify more time if needed (but one cannot specify less), so from that point of view it's better for MCTs to be too short than too long. But, of course, one has to cater for passengers who are unfamiliar with the route and will reasonably rely on journey planners to suggest something sensible and achievable, but not unduly slow. I think the rail industry could do much better on that front. I don't think there are enough fixed links where the EL is concerned, nor do I think the MCTs are right. There is no standard which you could apply consistenly and arrive at 5 minutes for EL > District Line at Whitechapel but 8 minutes for EL > Thameslink at Farringdon.

 

[Class800]

The interchange time at Doncaster is 7 minutes and wasn’t extended when they opened platform 0. Going from the back of a train at p0 with luggage to platform 5 is going to have 4 lifts and a lot of walking to do.

Unless disabled most people would use stairs on tight connections, and not sure why you'd be right at the back if you've a connection to make, move to a sensible place before alighting

 

[mm333]

Unless disabled most people would use stairs on tight connections, and not sure why you'd be right at the back if you've a connection to make, move to a sensible place before alighting

Because not everybody who travels knows the layout of the stations they need to change at like we do.

 

[redreni]

Yes, I accept that you can't expect passengers to know the optimum position to alight. The luggage stipulation puzzles me, though.

If you have so much luggage that it's going to slow you down (e.g. because you'll need to use lifts rather than stairs and escalators), specify extra interchange time. Or at least look at the itinerary you've been offered and don't accept anything you feel might be tight. The same applies if you move more slowly than most people, for whatever reason.

I don't know who these people are who need significantly more time than most people do, but are somehow unaware of this fact? Adding extra time to MCTs to accommodate the slowest quintile of passengers inconveniences everybody else and reduces the competitiveness of rail against other modes by making perfectly sensible itineraries impossible. When the issue it addresses could be solved by making it an accreditation requirement for retailers to give people the option to request extra interchange time if they think they may need it.

 

[ainsworth74]

If you have so much luggage that it's going to slow you down (e.g. because you'll need to use lifts rather than stairs and escalators), specify extra interchange time. Or at least look at the itinerary you've been offered and don't accept anything you feel might be tight. The same applies if you move more slowly than most people, for whatever reason.

Are there many journey planners, other than the Forums (Trainsplit), which allow you to stipulate additional interchange time?

 

[JBuchananGB]

Although a journey planner I looked at had 4 minutes walking time between Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street, it was incorporated in the time between a 1638 arrival at the former and a 1704 departure from the latter, so really 26 minutes. That can probably be achieved. The route via Whitechapel and Tower Hill is rather circuitous, but maybe slightly quicker! I'm surprised nothing suggests changing at Liverpool Street onto a Circle Line to Tower Hill. Maybe that's even slower.

 

[jfollows]

Although a journey planner I looked at had 4 minutes walking time between Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street, it was incorporated in the time between a 1638 arrival at the former and a 1704 departure from the latter, so really 26 minutes. That can probably be achieved. The route via Whitechapel and Tower Hill is rather circuitous, but maybe slightly quicker! I'm surprised nothing suggests changing at Liverpool Street onto a Circle Line to Tower Hill. Maybe that's even slower.

As I posted above, 26 minutes is the minimum connection time between these two stations. The 4 minute walking time is only one component of this.

 

[JBuchananGB]

The point being made is that the two stations are almost a mile apart, and it would take 20 minutes to walk. It would be touch and go whether 26 minutes would be enough to get from a train arriving at Liverpool Street to catch one departing at Fenchurch Street. I'm sure I would go for the Circle Line. Interestingly the TfL Journey Planner suggests GWR Twyford To Paddington then Bakerloo from Paddington to Baker Street, then Jubilee Line to West Ham for C2C. Alternatively use Lizzie to Whitechapel the District Line to West Ham. All makes much more sense than what the National Rail planners are proposing!

 

[jfollows]

The point being made is that the two stations are almost a mile apart, and it would take 20 minutes to walk. It would be touch and go whether 26 minutes would be enough to get from a train arriving at Liverpool Street to catch one departing at Fenchurch Street. I'm sure I would go for the Circle Line. Interestingly the TfL Journey Planner suggests GWR Twyford To Paddington then Bakerloo from Paddington to Baker Street, then Jubilee Line to West Ham for C2C. Alternatively use Lizzie to Whitechapel the District Line to West Ham. All makes much more sense than what the National Rail planners are proposing!

Fair point, thank you for clarifying!

 

[Class800]

Yes, I accept that you can't expect passengers to know the optimum position to alight. The luggage stipulation puzzles me, though.

If you have so much luggage that it's going to slow you down (e.g. because you'll need to use lifts rather than stairs and escalators), specify extra interchange time. Or at least look at the itinerary you've been offered and don't accept anything you feel might be tight. The same applies if you move more slowly than most people, for whatever reason.

I don't know who these people are who need significantly more time than most people do, but are somehow unaware of this fact? Adding extra time to MCTs to accommodate the slowest quintile of passengers inconveniences everybody else and reduces the competitiveness of rail against other modes by making perfectly sensible itineraries impossible. When the issue it addresses could be solved by making it an accreditation requirement for retailers to give people the option to request extra interchange time if they think they may need it.

You'd expect people to know back is unlikely to be good. Most 'normals' I know aim for the front, whereas experts either go for the middle or get station plans out

 

[redreni]

You'd expect people to know back is unlikely to be good. Most 'normals' I know aim for the front, whereas experts either go for the middle or get station plans out

It depends on the circumstances.

During a train strike last year when I had to get from Stevenage to London and only an hourly LNER service was running, I went to the very back of the train and stood in the vestibule because otherwise it would have been difficult and uncomfortable, if not impossible, to board. There was no scope whatsoever to move forward before alighting. Luckily I didn't have a specific connection I needed to make.

This is just one illustration of a situation where one doesn't have a great deal of choice. The OP's scenario where the first leg is on the Elizabeth Line core is definitely one where one might have to just board wherever one can, and may not be able to move freely along the train before alighting.

 

[Haywain]

Are there many journey planners, other than the Forums (Trainsplit), which allow you to stipulate additional interchange time?

There aren't, and it's not obvious that people would know they would need to allow additional time.

 

[redreni]

There aren't, and it's not obvious that people would know they would need to allow additional time.

Well, one solution to that might be to have uniformly generous MCTs, but as that's not the case (as the OP's example illustrates), what we have is a "worst of all worlds" scenario where many perfectly sensible journeys are ruled out by absurdly overly padded-out MCTs, yet passengers who are not particularly fast and may be incumbered by luggage and/or infants are still expected to make it from Whitechapel EL to Fenchurch Street in 17 minutes (which is not a connection I would accept if it was critical that I made it, and I know where I'm going).

I would argue, as well, that it is obvious that people who need additional time because they move significantly more slowly than most other people will be aware of that. If they don't know that this means they may need to add additional time to make cross-London connections, that can only be for the reason I just mentioned - the minimum times are often (but not always) very generous. They may book one journey where the MCTs are generous anyway and the time given for their connection happens to be further extended by headways in the timetable, which may give them the impression that connections through London are always going to be comfortable for them. Then they may book to go from Berkshire to Essex via Whitechapel and Fenchurch Street and, I suppose, they may not appreciate that they need to allow additional time.

It really doesn't matter where you stand on the spectrum between the two extremes of thinking minimising journey times is all that matters, to thinking making sure nobody ever misses a connection when their trains run on time is all that matters - the status quo is massively inconsistent and I don't really see how it can be defended?

Is there a reason why the MCTs couldn't be reviewed so with a view to making them consistent and rational (i.e. somebody checks how long the transfers actually take them and then a fixed percentage of that time is added as padding)?

 

[JBuchananGB]

This thread is wandering off into general debate over Minimum Connection Times, and losing sight of the need to help the OP with a journey from Twyford to Basildon. We have established that the National Rail journey planners are producing silly routes, in particular unrealistic between Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street. I used to work at Basildon, right next to the station so I'm familiar with most of the route. I don't know the interchange at Whitechapel between Elizabeth Line and District Line, but I think that using Elizabeth Line from Twyford to Whitechapel, then District Line onwards to West Ham for C2C looks best. You could even stay on the District Line to Barking where there is a cross platform interchange between District and C2C. Take a few minutes longer but easier interchange.

 

[CyrusWuff]

National Rail journey planners can only offer cross-London routes that are defined as a fixed link, though they don't take intermediate calling points into account.

So Baker Street - Rickmansworth, for example, is completely isolated from Baker Street - Amersham, even though the same trains call at both.

 

[Trainbike46]

There aren't, and it's not obvious that people would know they would need to allow additional time.

Allowing users to specify longer connection time is a really good feature though - and one of the advantages of the forum's ticket site

I'm sure there are some people who might need more time than most who don't realise, but similarly there certainly are people who need extra time and realise it, and also there are people who might not need but would appreciate extra time. The function exists for those people.

 

[Haywain]

Allowing users to specify longer connection time is a really good feature though - and one of the advantages of the forum's ticket site

Yes, it's a very good feature. But if I haven't been to station X how do I know that the minimum connection time isn't going to be enough? As things stand the MCTs are enough for the vast majority of cases but that wouldn't be the case if they were shortened.