Early departure to avoid connecting passengers causing a delay?

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

Before reading this thread I had considered the practise of locking the doors 40 seconds before departure time to be 'just one of those (rather irritating) things'. Now I realise it is ludicrous.

Public transport running late can be forgiven - many factors can cause delay, and even those that are within the control of the operators often have a reasonable explanation. Running early is unforgivable under anything but exceptional circumstances, because it can only be caused by deliberately leaving ahead of the published time. Once the doors are locked, the train has to all intents and purposes departed - no-one arriving in those 40 seconds will be allowed to board. It strikes me that this is an example of the rail industry failing to see things from the passengers' perspective - isn't the answer to this simple? Is it not just a matter of publishing the 'doors locked' time in the timetable, instead of the 'wheels turning' time?

Speaking from personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that 40 seconds seems like a very long time when you are standing on a platform, having arrived in time (according to the timetable and the station clock) to catch your train, only to be told that the doors are locked and you can't get on.

You've used very different wording to me, but the bit in bold in particular sound like what I was saying above.

[grahame]

It's somewhat off topic, but this whole business of "what time is in the timetable?" is an interesting one.  I agree with the view that it should be the final boarding time, as whether it then takes 5, 20, 30, 40 or 120 seconds to prepare the train for the wheels to actually start rolling is an internal rail operation thing of no consequence to the travelling passenger.   This isn't a unique thing to the rail industry - take a large ferry or a plane and you'll be told the time it leaves, but you'll need to arrive at the boarding / control point rather earlier.

There is, I suppose, a counterargument that says that stating actual leaving time gives the traveller a very visible indicator of whether he's on time, whereas a gate / door closing time isn't obvious to the traveller already on board, and there would be lots of people thinking that the service is running late.

Just a reminder - my grouch on Friday was about arriving on the platform before the public timetabled departure time, and yet just seeing the tail lights of the train already disappearing off the end of the platform.  And in answer to an earlier poster - Yes, I believe it did strand a number of vulnerable young travellers.

[Red Squirrel]

There is, I suppose, a counterargument that says that stating actual leaving time gives the traveller a very visible indicator of whether he's on time, whereas a gate / door closing time isn't obvious to the traveller already on board, and there would be lots of people thinking that the service is running late.

I think that is a second or third order problem, compared with being forbidden to board a train which you reasonably believe you have arrived in time to catch - especially true if your ticket is only valid on that train!

Sorry for not acknowledging that you'd already made the same point, Rhydgaled.

[ChrisB]

I think the public TT should show the doors closed time, while the working TT can have the departure time - and tie the punctuality stats to the latter.

[John R]

I agree. At the very least this should be the case for "last train" departures.

[BandHcommuter]

I think it's worth separating the issues surrounding the early departure from the fact that a number of passengers missed connections on a low frequency train service, and last of the day for some destinations.

It is true that some fleet-of-foot passengers may have made the connection had it not left a few seconds early, but the reality is that for most passengers two minutes is not enough time to make a safe connection between platforms at Bristol. Indeed, some less able-bodied passengers may require the full ten minutes recommended connection time just to get between the two trains. So, should the connection have been held until all passengers had boarded?

I have heard it said by certain members of rail staff that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) do not generally hold connections (one even said "there's no such thing as a connection"), and this may be true as a default position. But my experience as a regular passenger is that connections are frequently held, sometimes for substantial durations in the case of a last train of the day, and regardless of the operator of the late running train. It requires the identification of customer needs, and communication between staff on the late-running train, a control centre, and the platform staff at the connecting station. Connections cannot always be arranged for genuine operational reasons, and I accept this, but it can often be done and I have been a beneficiary on many occasions over the years (particularly at Westbury, Bath and Bristol TM^‡(resolve)).

Unfortunately the requisite communication sometimes fails, usually when the customer service staff on the late running train do not seek to establish whether some of their passengers have connections at risk (some staff do, some don't). Other points of failure include the on-train staff being unable to make contact with the control centre because of phone signal issues or being busy with other duties, or the message not getting through to the relevant platform staff in sufficient time to hold the train.

Because of this lack of consistency, I now make a point of going to find the train manager/guard/conductor if I have an important connection at risk, and ask if a request can be made to hold the connection. They are usually pleased to try and help where they can. It would be interesting to know if there are any formal policies or procedures in place - maybe railway staff who frequent the forum can advise?

[IndustryInsider]

Very well said, B&Hcommuter.

As far as the staff are concerned, there's too much emphasis on not getting delay minutes attributed to you, and too much emphasis on blowing whistles too early and trains leaving early as a result.  For example, with the connection in question, had the platform staff received a request from control then it would have been held, but they would be reluctant to hold it off their own back in case they get clobbered for delay minutes.

Dispatch wise, 40-seconds to start the door closure procedure on a Voyager or a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is probably about right in terms of the train departing (i.e. wheels moving) at the right time, but if a DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) Turbo does that at a remote location then the train can be on the move 30 seconds early - sitting there with the doors shut and locked waiting departure time is just another kick in the teeth for any passengers who wanted that train.

So a bit of common sense needs to be applied - platform staff should not have to risk castigation when they spot a train likely to have connecting passengers on it and decide to hold it for a few seconds without authority (I'm talking seconds rather than minutes).  And rather than a blanket 40-second policy, the time it takes to dispatch each and every type of train should be taken into account.  Giving permission to lock/close the doors 40 seconds in advance for HST's/Voyagers, 30 seconds for other non-DOO units, 20 seconds for platform staff dispatched DOO services and 15 seconds for driver dispatched DOO services would, in most cases, result in the wheels moving at the prescribed time.

As it is, once again the railway industry upsets its passengers for little reason other than the largely fake financial world of train delay attribution and that leads to circumstances as described by Graham in the original post.

[Red Squirrel]

Very well said, B&Hcommuter.

As far as the staff are concerned, there's too much emphasis on not getting delay minutes attributed to you, and too much emphasis on blowing whistles too early and trains leaving early as a result.  For example, with the connection in question, had the platform staff received a request from control then it would have been held, but they would be reluctant to hold it off their own back in case they get clobbered for delay minutes.

Dispatch wise, 40-seconds to start the door closure procedure on a Voyager or a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is probably about right in terms of the train departing (i.e. wheels moving) at the right time, but if a DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) Turbo does that at a remote location then the train can be on the move 30 seconds early - sitting there with the doors shut and locked waiting departure time is just another kick in the teeth for any passengers who wanted that train.

So a bit of common sense needs to be applied - platform staff should not have to risk castigation when they spot a train likely to have connecting passengers on it and decide to hold it for a few seconds without authority (I'm talking seconds rather than minutes).  And rather than a blanket 40-second policy, the time it takes to dispatch each and every type of train should be taken into account.  Giving permission to lock/close the doors 40 seconds in advance for HST's/Voyagers, 30 seconds for other non-DOO units, 20 seconds for platform staff dispatched DOO services and 15 seconds for driver dispatched DOO services would, in most cases, result in the wheels moving at the prescribed time.

As it is, once again the railway industry upsets its passengers for little reason other than the largely fake financial world of train delay attribution and that leads to circumstances as described by Graham in the original post.

Perhaps there should be a penalty for departing early? If it was set at around 20 times the penalty for departing late, it would be about right IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

[grahame]

Note to posters - if this gets interesting and produces something significant in answer or comment, I may move the thread into a more public area.  If it fades as just a rant, I'll leave it in Frequent Posters as I do appreciate what a hard job the railways have.

This has indeed generated some significant discussion, which I feel is worth sharing more widely.   So I'm going to move it from our "Frequent Posters" area to a public area later this evening.   I don't think there's anything posted that our 'regulars' might want to edit, and you were all pre-alerted to the possibility, so I don't think I've any need to p.m. everyone and wait for further clearance?

[grahame]

So a bit of common sense needs to be applied - platform staff should not have to risk castigation when they spot a train likely to have connecting passengers on it and decide to hold it for a few seconds without authority (I'm talking seconds rather than minutes). ....

I'm going to suggest that door closing probably started 40 seconds before the scheduled departure time, and the train actually left some 20 seconds before scheduled.  Looking at a couple of 150 dispatches since, it's taken around 18 seconds from whistles to wheels rolling.  However, had door closing started 20 seconds before scheduled departure on Friday, I suspect the train would have left around 60 seconds late as fitter passengers held the door for those a few seconds behind them; agreed, II - 90 seconds (or perhaps one sixtieth of the time to the next train) shouldn't lead to a worry of castigation.

As it is, once again the railway industry upsets its passengers for little reason other than the largely fake financial world of train delay attribution and that leads to circumstances as described by Graham in the original post.

Looking at Real Time Trains, it reported that the train sat in Westbury when it got there for 2 minutes, and left there on time according to the public timetable, which is one minute early according to the working timetable.  I think I've read that train stats are compiled based on final destination arrivals, so that the extra 60 seconds in Bristol would have cost nothing.  And it would have saved an awful lot of face, turned a lot of customers into thankful ambassadors, and reduced one heck of a taxi bill which I suspect someone may have ended up with.

Hindsight is - of course - marvellous stuff, and we cannot expect staff to have crystal balls.   I have to agree with the thread's sentiment that seems to be (a) public timetable time should be last boarding time, (b) there should be a service etiquette from management that says "if people are running for a train, think 'customer' and let 'em get it" and (c) think before you dispatch the very last service.

Perhaps there should be a penalty for departing early? If it was set at around 20 times the penalty for departing late, it would be about right IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

I understand that First Bus drivers can loose their jobs for leaving more than a certain amount early.   No matter how late they are, it doesn't seem too much of a problem as they'll still stop for a fag break mid-route.  But that story is for another day.

[thetrout]

You may recall I had similar troubles grahame regarding my journey to South Wales and connecting from a late running FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Service into an Arriva Trains Wales service. The ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) left from the opposite platform at Cardiff Central the moment I stepped on the platform. The next service being in an hour, I ended up taking a taxi at ^20 odd to get to my destination.


Meanwhile over in Essex..................:



(And yes, I was on that train and it did leave that early! The 7 minute early arrival into SOV is unfortunately also accurate! )

[trainer]

Meanwhile over in Essex..................:

I think those early morning departures are from stations that have no pick up at that time, only set down.

[grahame]

A very interesting discussion that's covered early running, train door closure time, holding the last train of the day, attribution of lateness ... which merits being available to all readers and not just regular posters. So ... topic moved from our "frequent poster" board to public display. 

[Rhydgaled]

Meanwhile over in Essex..................:

image replaced with link

(And yes, I was on that train and it did leave that early! The 7 minute early arrival into SOV is unfortunately also accurate! )

An early arrival is of no obvious immediate concern to passengers. At the terminal station it is even to be expected, due to PPM^‡(resolve) being based only on the last stop hence the public timetable often has quite a bit of padding before the final stop to boost PPM. Departing early however is wrong, I think I can agree with the comment that penalties for leaving early should be higher than penalties for delays.

In fact, I think a delay of five minutes or less (a delay longer than 5 minutes would make a connection impossible without a waiting room, by my definition of connection) is less of a concern to me than departing just seconds before the scheduled public departure time.

[eightf48544]

It is interesting that this discussion was triggered by remarks made by John Watt Conservative MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Slough at the time of privatisation. To the effect taht connections would NOT be held on the new super efficient privatised railway.

He missed he whole point of teh railways that they are an interconnecting network. The trouble is the "bean counters" aren't clever enough to work out that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole and good easy connections are the life blood of the railways.

I have a super piece of video taken at Mannheim of an ICE and an IC^▸ (Inter City) running into the station side by side to give a cross platform interchange. No defnesive driving here the IC overtakes the ICe and still stops.