Four elderly ladies thrown off Northern train

[Horizon22]

I am not convinced; are you absolutely sure it's nothing to do with the fact that the connections in question are within the same company?

Certain. Again as I said above (I think I edited after you quoted) in specific examples it might be feasible (with constraints) but often it simply will not be.

In any case, this isn't a satisfactory situation; if what you say is true, then there is still a root cause that shouldn't exist.

The root cause is late running and the aim - as I said - is for incidents to a) reduce in number, b) have less impact when they do occur. This is reliant on Network Rail (who are 'responsible' for the majority of incidents) and TOCs having a focus on this, although of course this is much easier said than done and we can point to a host of reasons why trains are delayed. Perhaps some timetable optimisation at certain hotspots to improve connectional times, but again train planning is incredibly complicated and reliant on so many factors to get right. Something that seems simple could get a 5 minute explanation from a planner on why they would love to do something but why conflicts / other trains / timetable rules prevent it. Or doing that would impact something else down the line which now wouldn't align.

But ultimately if trains are running late, something has to give.

 

[thealexweb]

Regardless of rules being followed this has terrible optics. Another few families that will probably not use rail again *sigh*

 

[PLY2AYS]

I guess you don't realise that @bahnause works on a railway network with vastly higher satisfaction, punctuality and usage, than we have anywhere in the UK.

No, which I’m grateful to their insights of.
But I’m unsure how long they would hold doors for late runners? There comes a point where it becomes unfeasible.

I am not convinced; are you absolutely sure it's nothing to do with the fact that the connections in question are within the same company?

I’m inclined to agree… in my anecdotal experience anyway. I’ve either been been asked to hold a service or been on a service that’s waited for a late runner of the same TOC (or parent company anyway)

I noted on another thread, someone did say that the UK Rail system is run by those who fail to think outside of the box… there must be a better way of getting passengers to trains even when delayed? Much like contingencies for delays or disruption into various termini in major cities.

One would hope that with the advent of re-nationalisation, the abolition of late running fines would incentivise GBR to prioritise passengers.

 

[leytongabriel]

And then have to wait all of two minutes for the next train

Two minutes. Haha. Obviously not a Northern Line user. Irritating ,But yes, relatively inconsequential in the scheme of things.

 

[rg177]

I don't necessarily agree with the action of blocking the doors - if I was a fellow passenger it would irritate me. Asking the guard if they were able to wait 30/60 seconds as your connecting train had been delayed would probably have been my first thought. However, from their point of view, the railway has delayed them, they've tried to make their connecting train and then the guard has thrown them off because one friend was catching up. Not a great look.

I recall a couple of years ago I was on the first Paddington to Exeter service on a Sunday morning. It was about seven minutes late when it arrived at Castle Cary, directly across from the Weymouth service. Just as the doors on my train released, the guard of the Weymouth train shut the doors at T minus 30 seconds and off it went. Even worse was that the train had a booked 10-minute dwell at Yeovil Pen Mill, the next stop. That line isn't particularly frequent and there was a blasting cold wind. I was on a Rover ticket so I thought better of waiting and got straight back on the train I'd just stepped off. Others didn't have that option.

 

[hexagon789]

I don't necessarily agree with the action of blocking the doors - if I was a fellow passenger it would irritate me.

It's also an offence under the byelaws - blocking them, stopping them closing etc.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If there's not much resilience, how would you increase it? Reduce frequency? Run an extra unit and provide passing places? Miss stations?

As a matter of fact, for the Looe branch this is actually exactly what is being done from this May’s timetable change - the existing hourly pattern is eased to roughly every 65-70 minutes, and more robust turnrounds. The overall detriment is one or two fewer round trips per day but much better service recovery and (one would hope) greater flexibility for holding connections.

 

[MotCO]

Very rarely (uniquely?) in my experience, the opposite occurred at Goole yesterday on an afternoon Scarborough to Sheffield service.

We set off then almost immediately stopped and after a few seconds a lady appeared on the platform and started talking to the driver. After a few more seconds, the doors re-opened and she got on.

I've no idea what made the driver stop like that as I don't think I've ever seen passengers let on after a train has set off, let alone after the doors have closed.

Sounds like she was Mrs fforbes-Hamilton, of 'To the Manor Born' fame. In the programme, I think she 'owned' the station so could get the train to wait for her.

 

[james_the_xv]

The whole 'holding the doors' thing is incredibly annoying from a passenger perspective as well, why is your groups' journey more important than everyone else on the train to delay it? (Regardless of reason)

From a moral perspective agree with the TM here, can't allow people to think they can routinely delay trains by holding the doors

 

[bahnause]

No, which I’m grateful to their insights of.
But I’m unsure how long they would hold doors for late runners? There comes a point where it becomes unfeasible.

These passengers missed their connection through no fault of their own, but due to delays on a previous train.

Regarding connections ion our network: A decision on whether to wait for a connecting train is usually made early on, often automatically by the system. Specific threshold values determine how long a connecting train can typically be held, taking into account the wait time for the next available connection.

Manual intervention is always an option, especially when the connecting train is still at the station upon arrival and could be reached. In such cases, waiting for the connection is advisable, even if it may not be optimal in terms of overall network delays.

This is where the resilience of the network plays a crucial role—without sufficient reserves, reliable operations are not feasible.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Whatever happened to "no man (or in this case woman) left behind"?

Not necessarily good PR for the railway, but if I was with a group of three friends and one of us was significantly slower than the rest of us, that would be the pace we all progress at. If it meant a missed connection, so be it.

 

[RPI]

The only devil's advocate comment I'd make is, if the branch is late for rest of the day what about all the people missing connections to London or elsewhere coming from Looe.

I dont agree with it at all, and the branch should have more resilience to allow for this would be my view.

Problem with the Looe branch, to have more resilience and run the roughly hourly service, you'd then need to remove more stops. As it is the intermediate stations only get a 2 hourly service due to the tight timings. Otherwise you'd need to move away from the near clockface timetable. It's not a line where you can really catch up much time, same as the St Ives.

 

[Kite159]

When it's cheaper to pay out delay repay (especially if it can be thrown at another operator) compared to the 'fine' the operator receives by running late, companies will always try and dispatch on time.

Even if it's not putting the passenger first.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Liskeard to Looe takes approx 24-28 minutes. So the service runs hourly all day. So there is literally no recovery time

Yep went away and reviewed the timetable. On that basis I'm not surprised they didn't hold the branch. Seems like it was a lose lose situation.

 

[185143]

Very rarely (uniquely?) in my experience, the opposite occurred at Goole yesterday on an afternoon Scarborough to Sheffield service.

We set off then almost immediately stopped and after a few seconds a lady appeared on the platform and started talking to the driver. After a few more seconds, the doors re-opened and she got on.

I've no idea what made the driver stop like that as I don't think I've ever seen passengers let on after a train has set off, let alone after the doors have closed.

I can beat that!

Once watched a ferry depart. Only for one of the deck staff to run inside and the ship to reverse back to the dock to pick up a late arriving van.

 

[sh24]

GWR are actually very good at connectional policies on Devon and Cornwall branches. There is a limit though to how late a train can be at a some point a line has to be drawn unfortunately.

And as mentioned, delaying connections for return journeys can mean even more missed connections for longer.

Very much my experience. They try very hard at Plymouth to make connections out of/into London trains, to the point of trains being replatformed to make things work as easily as possible, and lots of proactive management by guards and platform staff.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Very much my experience. They try very hard at Plymouth to make connections out of/into London trains, to the point of trains being replatformed to make things work as easily as possible, and lots of proactive management by guards and platform staff.

Plymouth is a good example of ‘old school railway operations’ in action; close coordination between signallers, station staff and planning functions. Becoming a lost art elsewhere.

 

[PLY2AYS]

These passengers missed their connection through no fault of their own, but due to delays on a previous train.

Regarding connections ion our network: A decision on whether to wait for a connecting train is usually made early on, often automatically by the system. Specific threshold values determine how long a connecting train can typically be held, taking into account the wait time for the next available connection.

Manual intervention is always an option, especially when the connecting train is still at the station upon arrival and could be reached. In such cases, waiting for the connection is advisable, even if it may not be optimal in terms of overall network delays.

This is where the resilience of the network plays a crucial role—without sufficient reserves, reliable operations are not feasible.

I massively overlooked the detail about them coming from a connecting train… poor from me.

This is genuinely fascinating to read though, and I’m optimistic that investment into similar technology in the UK may be viable within GBR…
But without knowing the intricacies of it and the network’s capacity, it would need a lot of modelling, I’m sure.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only devil's advocate comment I'd make is, if the branch is late for rest of the day what about all the people missing connections to London or elsewhere coming from Looe.

I dont agree with it at all, and the branch should have more resilience to allow for this would be my view.

Agree with that. Branch lines like Liskeard to Looe that depend on connections with mainline trains should have more resilience so they can be held for late mainline trains. But I think that would require a lot of investment for Liskeard to Looe which - correct me if I'm mistaken - has no passing places that would allow the same hourly frequency to run with more resiliency.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Agree with that. Branch lines like Liskeard to Looe that depend on connections with mainline trains should have more resilience so they can be held for late mainline trains. But I think that would require a lot of investment for Liskeard to Looe which - correct me if I'm mistaken - has no passing places that would allow the same hourly frequency to run with more resiliency.

You would never make a business case to double the resource provision (two units, extra crew etc, plus all the infrastructure and signalling.)

But then someone made a case for Newquay-Par so… who knows! I’d certainly be able to think of 101 better ways to spend funding tbh.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yesterday I was on a Liverpool to Leeds train and had a 10 min connection for the Harrogate service (P11d to P1c). The TPE was 5 mins late but I just about made it. A group of 4 elderly ladies, who I didn’t know, found it harder. Three made it and one waited in the door for her struggling friend who then made it.

Rather than wait 30 secs, the conductor tried to cLose the door then threw the four of them off saying it may have looked cruel but it was a safety issue.

He was of course correct and in his rights and only obeying company orders.

But what has the railway come to when staff and passengers are forced to behave like this and be totally devoid of common sense and compassion? Punctuality targets trump passenger welfare.

(And yes I do understand that short delays can have knock on effects)

To be fair, while I understand this would have been intensely frustrating for the ladies concerned, if this was at Leeds then the guard probably had no way to know this was the result of a late arriving train - he would have simply seen people obstructing the door to prevent the train from leaving. And besides, a train leaving Leeds is probably carrying connecting passengers who have arrived on numerous other trains, so it's not a place where it's really a good idea to wait for one specific train.

If it was somewhere like - say - Oxenholme and (hypothetically) a service to Windermere departing while passengers were obviously scrambling off a late-running Avanti from London on just the other side of the island platform, then my sympathies would be the other way round.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds a bit odd for the ‘last’ train being such a priority to depart dead on time.

A WMT guard once told me that the last service off Euston often runs a minute or two late to make sure they get all the stragglers. There's basically nothing that connects to it (even buses have mostly packed up by then) so this is sensible. Not always though, it went on time last night.

As for Northern, the Windermere branch train does get held for connections at least some of the time, certainly the last one of the day. This is very much like GWR's branches, a train that almost only exists for connections from the mainline.

 

[Adam0984]

Having heard the story from the horses mouth the morning, 1 woman ran ahead and as the doors were closing wedged herself in the doors to stop them closing and they bounced up as the 170 doors do and they tried closing again and she pushed them open again as her 3 friends got on. The guard did eject them all from the train, from RTT it looks like they were on 9E08 Liverpool to Newcastle that arrived on platform 11 at 0954 1/2 (scheduled at 0949 @
so a valid connection) with the 0959 York train on pfm 1

 

[sh24]

Plymouth is a good example of ‘old school railway operations’ in action; close coordination between signallers, station staff and planning functions. Becoming a lost art elsewhere.

It is - in fact GWR land from Exeter onwards runs like a proper railway.

 

[Krokodil]

I guess you don't realise that @bahnause works on a railway network with vastly higher satisfaction, punctuality and usage, than we have anywhere in the UK

A network which has seen a considerable amount of capital investment dedicated to making connections more robust and reducing the impact of disruption. Whereas we in the UK have starved our infrastructure of investment and our planners are forced to find ways to fit quarts into pint pots.

In other places - such as TPE or Northern has been quoted - holding one train might mean the passengers on the held train might miss their connections or a hold of 5 minutes might mean a missed slot at a key junction and a 15 minute late arrival which caused further disruption and so on. This isn’t hyperbole and definitely happens

With anything involving Castlefield Junction, a mere 3 minute delay in the morning will still be felt into the evening.

I am not convinced; are you absolutely sure it's nothing to do with the fact that the connections in question are within the same company?

Getting holds authorised is much easier within the same TOC, but that doesn't mean that things are perfect. We've got a railway where there is little consideration given to connections, the focus has long been on end-to-end journey times, treating each train as a silo.

Having heard the story from the horses mouth the morning, 1 woman ran ahead and as the doors were closing wedged herself in the doors to stop them closing and they bounced up as the 170 doors do and they tried closing again and she pushed them open again as her 3 friends got on. The guard did eject them all from the train, from RTT it looks like they were on 9E08 Liverpool to Newcastle that arrived on platform 11 at 0954 1/2 (scheduled at 0949 @
so a valid connection) with the 0959 York train on pfm 1

Ultimately passenger attempts to hold trains by forcing doors or touching the bodyside do have to be discouraged. If it is allowed to continue then someone is going to get hurt (try holding the doors on a 150 and see how sensitive they aren't). So whatever the rights and wrongs of connectional policy are, the guard is right to refuse travel if someone interferes in this way.

 

[AbsoluteBlock]

On the one hand it seems harsh, on the other hand if you were to replace the elderly ladies with an 18 year old blocking the doors so their mate who isn't as quick could catch it the responses to the scenario may differ!

I too suspect that the responses may differ, but perhaps they shouldn't: I am not too much beyond 18 years of age and would be likely to hold the doors open for my twin sister in a similar situation. What observers wouldn't know is that she has a chronic condition which makes her less mobile than many pensioners. In the words of a prominent British campaign: not every disability is visible!

Speaking from experience, I often find if you hold a train for an extra 30 seconds to let a straggler board, you can end up in a situation where more people then start running and you seem to be stuck there.

This is a very good point. I have read that it is considered taboo in Japan to run to catch a train, and whether or not that is true, I think that is what we should be aiming for in the UK. Of course, such a social rule will only survive if people have faith that the next train will reliably arrive without an unduly long wait - otherwise, I can't see any taboo sticking and it's every man for himself. An hour is definitely a long enough wait to get me running, and it's not even the worst-case scenario: the Cambrian line for instance has trains only once every two hours for much of the day. You could call a taxi at Shrewsbury and be in Aberystwyth before the next train has even started on its way!

However, I have been in places where this is not the case, with headways of mere minutes, and it's a nice feeling to be able to saunter up to the platform, or even choose not to board at all because the vehicle is uncomfortably busy, as I have recently done in Czechia. Passengers will solve the train overcrowding issue themselves if given a chance!

GWR are actually very good at connectional policies on Devon and Cornwall branches. There is a limit though to how late a train can be at a some point a line has to be drawn unfortunately.

I was told by the train manager of an express on the Paddington-Penzance route that this is set at seven minutes for connections with the Tarka Line. That is, the train to Barnstaple will be held for up to seven minutes to allow passengers from London to change. Whether or not this is also true for northbound trains, or from trains coming from destinations such as Leeds, I do not know. However, I would agree with Horizon22; GWR have always been reasonable in my experience.

 

[BayPaul]

Could there be an advantage in writing the passenger timetables for branch line trains that they leave several minutes before they actually do on the working timetable (snd arrive a few minutes after the actual schedule). That would give a bit more flexibility to appear that trains are being held and give better connection times, without actually impacting running.

Agree with that. Branch lines like Liskeard to Looe that depend on connections with mainline trains should have more resilience so they can be held for late mainline trains. But I think that would require a lot of investment for Liskeard to Looe which - correct me if I'm mistaken - has no passing places that would allow the same hourly frequency to run with more resiliency.

The train spends a lot of time reversing direction at Coombe Junction. If some kind of remote control could be installed on the points, I would imagine at least 5 minutes could be saved per round trip.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Getting holds authorised is much easier within the same TOC, but that doesn't mean that things are perfect. We've got a railway where there is little consideration given to connections, the focus has long been on end-to-end journey times, treating each train as a silo.

This is yet another area for which GBR will have to find a national policy for connections, as BR once had.