How off-putting is it to change trains in GB - from rail regulars via 'normals' to OAPs to foreign visitors?

[70014IronDuke]

TAKEN from this thread

Future of the Settle - Carlisle and Forest of Bowland (Bentham) lines

more important flows from Carlisle to Sheffield or Nottingham. Important flow?! Any passengers from Nottingham to Carlisle and beyond can change at Crewe, allowing them to make use of the "Premier Line".

www.railforums.co.uk

But unlike 97% of the folks who read this blog, I would posit that there is a significant percentage of 'normals' who dislike - and even positively fear - changing trains.

@zwk500 REPLIED This is regularly raised as a factor but is there any serious evidence that there is a significant number of people put off by any changes at all. I can quite readily accept that somebody's 90-year-old mother with 2 suitcases doesn't want to change, or somebody who hasn't used the railway since 1983 wants to only get one train, but realistically how many journeys in the country are taken that don't require at least one change.

N.B. - I'm not claiming the the number of changes is irrelelvant. It's not, a direct train is clearly preferable. Especially for commuters (at some point the connection will go wrong) or for journeys involving 3+ legs (Every change increases the chance of the overall itinerary going out of the window). But I'm just questioning if single-change journeys have a demonstrable negative effect of statistical significance over a direct journey for leisure use such as this.

I (@70014IronDuke) felt this is a really interesting topic. There is continual exchange of views on this subject in here, everyone has an opinion, often backed by encounters with friends and others.

Are there any studies out there to back up our biases and prejudices - done by Network Rail or any TOCs?

 

[zwk500]

To fill in on a bit of this (and @Bletchleyite may also wish to contribute here), the evidence of people railheading to me is not conclusively driven by the need to change - indeed, in the London Commuter area, I have known friends and family to drive to stations beyond their nearest one that is served by the same train to access the higher level of service at a major/junction station, or wider choice of destinations, or greater car parking.

And to reiterate what @70014IronDuke has quoted me as saying - I am not claiming changes don't matter.

 

[HSTEd]

There are obvious examples of people regularly and happily changing trains - which would be on systems like the London Underground.

I don't think there is an innate aversion, more that low intensity timetables add an element of risk that people are not particularly comfortable with.

 

[Iskra]

There are obvious examples of people regularly and happily changing trains - which would be on systems like the London Underground.

I don't think there is an innate aversion, more that low intensity timetables add an element of risk that people are not particularly comfortable with.

That and if the connections are poor or official connection time overly generous it can add a significant time penalty that can make rail uncompetitive or unattractive for that journey.

 

[WAB]

Put it this way, people are happy enough on the Tube, not so happy when connecting into a x20 service. More trains in a journey also means a higher risk of cancellation, more chance you have to stand etc. as more trains are involved.

 

[John Luxton]

I think one of the deciding factors is if one is carrying a lot of luggage direct trains are preferable. Whist I am happy to have multiple changes on a day out rail roving or going to a particular destination I am not so happy about changing. Hence on my trips to the West Country from Merseyside it will always be by car as our direct North West / South West services disappeared years ago. All trips would involve a change at New Street.

 

[zwk500]

I think one of the deciding factors is if one is carrying a lot of luggage direct trains are preferable. Whist I am happy to have multiple changes on a day out rail roving or going to a particular destination I am not so happy about changing. Hence on my trips to the West Country from Merseyside it will always be by car as our direct North West / South West services disappeared years ago. All trips would involve a change at New Street.

I think this point is also relevant - there are certain stations that reputations for being troublesome to change at. New Street is certainly up there, much like people will also seek out services avoiding changes in central London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To fill in on a bit of this (and @Bletchleyite may also wish to contribute here), the evidence of people railheading to me is not conclusively driven by the need to change - indeed, in the London Commuter area, I have known friends and family to drive to stations beyond their nearest one that is served by the same train to access the higher level of service at a major/junction station, or wider choice of destinations, or greater car parking.

And to reiterate what @70014IronDuke has quoted me as saying - I am not claiming changes don't matter.

I don't think it's THE reason to railhead, but it's certainly A reason to railhead.

 

[zwk500]

I don't think it's THE reason to railhead, but it's certainly A reason to railhead.

But how significant a factor is it? That's the question this thread is posing. Because railheading is a symptom of the last-mile problem, so understanding the causes of these things is important to decarbonisation of our lifestyle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But how significant a factor is it? That's the question this thread is posing. Because railheading is a symptom of the last-mile problem, so understanding the causes of these things is important to decarbonisation of our lifestyle.

Very significant indeed.

It's kind of OK when your connection is something like Merseyrail or London Underground, but when one or the other service is infrequent people are really put off. By constrast everyone changes on the Tube because with sub-2-minute headways at times it's just not painful.

 

[zwk500]

Very significant indeed.

But do you have evidence for this? Because my 'sense' of things is that people railhead for increased frequency above avoiding a change. This means the solution would be quite different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But do you have evidence for this? Because my 'sense' of things is that people railhead for increased frequency above avoiding a change. This means the solution would be quite different.

People railhead for all manner of reasons. But a very significant one is the poor quality of connecting transport, both bus and rail.

You're not saying the Swiss are wrong, are you?

 

[occone]

Accessibility is probably the largest barrier to changing trains.

Changing trains with level boarding (hello class 745/755) is considerably easier for everyone: those with disabilities, prams, children, luggage, bikes, big hats, etc.

Compared to having to positively leap down from other trains with cavernous drops between the train and platform, where you'll find people struggling. Usually there's someone happy to lend a hand with prams etc but it's still hugely off-putting when having to change trains.

Add in the sense of time pressure at busy interchanges (people pushing on the train before others have alighted) and I can see why people dread changing trains.

 

[zwk500]

People railhead for all manner of reasons. But a very significant one is the poor quality of connecting transport, both bus and rail.

If people are railheading because of the poor quality of connecting transport, then presumably the change isn't the problem, but the connections actually timed?

You're not saying the Swiss are wrong, are you?

The swiss do what works for them. You're not suggesting that London and the South East is an Alpine Valley, are you?

 

[tbtc]

I’d love to see some actual data

It seems fairly obvious that a direct journey is more attractive than multiple changes but what difference does it make to actual demand? Is there a formula/ data to show what difference it’d make to introduce a direct service?

On the one hand, people on here want direct London trains from everywhere, the fact that “people prefer direct trains” gets trotted out every time someone suggests a random combination of cities for a new “Cross Country” service…

…. But then often we see suggestions that dozens of direct bus services into the city centre be curtailed and passengers forced to change into light/heavy rail from the same people

For unfamiliar passengers, a direct service probably makes much more of a difference, similarly passengers with significant luggage and/or children. But how flexible do we need to be to attract/ retain such passengers? Did Sheffield to Manchester trains become noticeably quieter when the decades-long hourly extension to Manchester Airport was removed? Or did people grumble a bit whilst putting up with the inconvenience and occasionally tutting?

I partly mention the airport service because people demanded we retained through airport services from Llandudno/ Barrow/ Windermere/ Middlesbrough/ Cleethorpes at the same time that flights are increasingly based around connections at “hubs”.

Changing is fine on the London Underground too (and for a long time people were demanding the “hopper” ticket on London’s buses to make changing vehicles more attractive) so this seems to be more of a problem on less frequent routes where a missed connection is more of an issue

But I fear that this is one of those issues where everyone has Strong Opinions but no task data to justify their hunches, just a few anecdotes or claims of overheard conversations (see also “Should Long Distance Trains Be Delayed To Maintain Late Connections” or rants about replacement bus services)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The swiss do what works for them. You're not suggesting that London and the South East is an Alpine Valley, are you?

No, but I'm suggesting that the principles of quality multimodal integrated transport systems work, and are the right choice, literally anywhere.

 

[mangyiscute]

This might be an odd take, but I reckon one issue with changes is that it often leads to higher fares - if you are getting a single train you can often get a cheap advance for that train, but chuck in a couple of changes and suddenly the availability of these cheap tickets drops massively. People tend to go for the cheaper route, and this is often a direct train (say Milton Keynes to Preston, the cheap tickets are on the longer service via Birmingham since this is direct so you're much more likely to find advances for it)

Other than that, I think it usually comes down to experience - for example I know someone who often does Reading to Truro, and they used to only get the direct trains, but now that they have a good amount of experience they are happy to change trains (especially as I often help them out with finding cheaper routes using trainsplit which usually involve changes) this is similar to how most people are uncomfortable changing through London (or even just travelling on the tube in general) when they first have to do it

 

[davidknibb]

And some changes require a trip between stations - like from Victoria to Picadilly in Manchester, - or most Terminii in London to say the Eurostar service.
I think that may well be off putting for quite a range of customers.
On the other hand changing at say Leicester or Coventry where there are only 4 platform is far less problematic.

 

[Grumpy]

I vaguely recall a discussion on one of these forums a few years ago which was around the old BR forecasting guide, including someone repeating the old mantra that a 1% reduction in journey times would result in a 1% increase in revenue. The point I was making was that this was too crude and should reflect various other factors including the fact that some people would be put off by any need to change trains.
There was a reply from someone currently working in the business who advised that a lot of research had been done on this and the forecasting models used by his business now reflected this. I have no idea what the research showed, no doubt commercially confidential.

 

[Taunton]

Significant is the prospect, if changing, of finding the connecting train is full. For example, changing into a Cross-Country at Birmingham that has come through from elsewhere.

Then there is the modern trend of sending supposed connections off regardless of whether the train they are meant to connect from is just pulling in. Apparently this has been a significant part of the reduction in use of Camberley, ever since the through service from Waterloo, dividing at Ascot, was reduced to a connection there which too often is sent off before or just as the late-running train from Waterloo runs in.

 

[nickswift99]

Significant is the prospect, if changing, of finding the connecting train is full. For example, changing into a Cross-Country at Birmingham that has come through from elsewhere.

Then there is the modern trend of sending supposed connections off regardless of whether the train they are meant to connect from is just pulling in. Apparently this has been a significant part of the reduction in use of Camberley, ever since the through service from Waterloo, dividing at Ascot, was reduced to a connection there which too often is sent off before or just as the late-running train from Waterloo runs in.

This is not just about holding connections but frequency of service. If the train you connect into is very frequent (I'd say no more than a 15 minute interval) then it probably doesn't matter much. But if it's one service an hour....

From my personal perspective I'd prefer high frequency connections like this to fewer but more direct trains.

However, this means that for people less mobile or with luggage, there needs to be proper interchange facilities, with clear signage, no last minute platform changes, somewhere comfy to wait, staff who can help with luggage and access to catering and toilets. I'd suggest Reading (my local interchange) probably ticks the toilet box and then fails dismally on the rest.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I generally don't mind changes on something like the Underground, where it's normal, and there's a high-frequency service (though even then there are occasions when I have luggage and would much rather not).

But on national and international mainline journeys I might try to avoid changes if possible (especially if they add a risk because there are tight connections to an infrequent service). However, I am going to do a more fiddly journey, within reason, if it saves me money; and I'm happy to switch from train to train to save time (eg on the London-Brighton route where I might get the first train north out of Brighton, but change en route to a faster service or one which goes to a terminal closer to my London destination); and - thirdly - I might want to switch trains out of interest (being interested in railway things). What I note, however, is that none of these three reasons for being happy to change [especially the third one!] cuts much ice with other (non-train-interested) people I know. If I'm getting tickets for myself and a traveling companion, then unless the time saving or the money saving is major, I'm always told to plan the easiest (ie fewest changes) journey.

So I think that for most most "normals", changes seen as unnecessary are pretty off-putting.

 

[zwk500]

No, but I'm suggesting that the principles of quality multimodal integrated transport systems work, and are the right choice, literally anywhere.

Which suggests that actually changes in and of themselves (and therefore direct trains) aren't as important as confidence in the system overall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which suggests that actually changes in and of themselves (and therefore direct trains) aren't as important as confidence in the system overall.

I would say that the poor quality of UK connections (in a number of ways) is a key reason people don't like making them, yes.

Examples of how they are of poor quality:
- Times are generally not co-ordinated so the connection is either stressfully tight or far too loose resulting in a lot of sitting around
- Staff are often not accommodating when connections are missed even if they are supposed to be
- Significant delay is caused by a missed connection onto an infrequent service
- Ticketing often penalises making connections
- Physical coordination often isn't in place, e.g. infrastructure isn't designed to create same and cross-platform interchange
Etc.

You either design a transport system or you design a collection of semi-independent routes that can be used as connections* but painfully. We've done the latter (even more so when talking about buses).

* At least the railway doesn't say "don't book connections" like Ryanair, say, does.

 

[zwk500]

You either design a transport system or you design a collection of semi-independent routes that can be used as connections* but painfully. We've done the latter (even more so when talking about buses).

* At least the railway doesn't say "don't book connections" like Ryanair, say, does.

But the premise was that people don't like changes because they are changes, not that they don't like changes because yet don't have confidence in the system.
If we went fully swiss/german (as I think we should be as close as reasonably possible to be) then we'd be able to focus on offering sensibly timed and reliable changes to people, rather than the current obsession with running trains from everywhere into one terminus (Manchester Airport, looking at you!).

Tbf to Ryanair, they have set their entire business up around serving point-to-point routes so they have little incentive to try and appear as a single coordinated network.

 

[alxndr]

Personally, I'm not bothered by changes at all, but a lot of people who don't get trains regularly seem to look at me a bit funny if I say I've had 4 or 5 changes to get somewhere. As someone who hadn't travelled by train for at least 15 years my mother was put off coming to visit me by the fact she'd have to make several changes. Even when I offered to meet her in London to avoid her having to do that bit alone, the idea of having to change at Ipswich alone was enough to put her off, and that's not a particularly difficult station to change at.

As far as I can make out, the concerns of those unaccustomed to rail travel are:

• Validity of tickets
  • Those under the misapprehension that tickets for each TOC must be brought from the relevant company
  • If a connection is missed
• Missing a connection
• Knowing how to find the next train
  • Which platform it will arrive on
  • Knowing that that train is the correct train and not one that's going to cart them off in the wrong direction
• Carrying luggage

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the premise was that people don't like changes because they are changes, not that they don't like changes because yet don't have confidence in the system.

That's not how I read the opening post. To me it says people don't like changes because they're stressful and inconvenient. Everyone changes on the Tube if they need to and thinks nothing of it, because it's normally smooth and quick.

Anyway, you can do swaparound direct services in a Takt, the Swiss do. Often you get something like a train from the big city that runs to X one hour and Y the next, in the hour the direct train to X runs there's a timed connecting service to Y and vice versa. If you want a UK application for that, think Barrow and Windermere, where there sort of is but with typical UK sloppiness so it isn't always useful and it won't wait for the other one. That way you're offered an infrequent direct service if you want that, or can choose a much more frequent connectional one.

Let's look at XC - it's basically a big X (ish). Doing it properly would mean the Bristol-Manchester and South Coast-Newcastle service would arrive at the same time either side of one island at New St, they'd wait there 5 minutes for people to change both ways, then they'd both head off, waiting if necessary within a specified level of reason. Nothing says you couldn't alternate the destinations to provide two-hourly through services if people like that.

 

[notverydeep]

Those planning services can and do use a set of parameters that represent the disinclination to interchange between trains or to / from a feeder mode. There is assumed to be a preference to not interchange, which is ‘economically rational’, even if not shared by some rail enthusiasts). Broadly it will be a function of the time taken to get from where the passenger alights to where they will next board, including a penalty for any stairs or congestion on that route, plus the average waiting time for the onward connection (which is a function of the frequency of that service), plus a penalty that represents the average passengers ‘weighting’ of their preference to not interchange. The first two of these are always location and time specific, the latter represent a the average of a broad range of personal preferences. As previous posts have indicated, these will be dependent on an individual’s mobility, how encumbered they are with luggage, children, bicycles etc. and their perception of the interchange (is it covered, can you get a coffee, can I sit down, is way finding straightforward) and the reliability risk (will the connections be robust if the journey is disrupted).

A metro can probably use a single penalty to predict how people will interchange, but the range of possible variations of all these factors will probably require a station specific estimate of the penalty for National Rail services away from very frequent routes. Hence, one might expect five minutes to be ample to connect from the southbound Piccadilly line to the southbound Victoria line at Finsbury Park, but leave 30 minutes to change from a Stevenage to Leeds train for an onward connection to Appleby in Westmorland or three hours to connect a Thameslink train into a flight to Bucharest at Gatwick Airport, or even a whole 24 hours to change from the Berlin to Moscow train into the onward service to Beijing (in the days when such a journey could be contemplated)…

 

[geoffk]

Surely the likelihood that your connecting train will not be held if your previous journey is running late is a deterrent to many travellers, especially if you've been caught out once and ended up with a long wait. This happens because performance targets are prioritised over customer satisfaction.

 

[Meerkat]

I'd rather not change because it means collecting up my stuff and leaving my nice warm seat to stand around on a cold dark platform.
Its also wasted time, particularly as being a pessimist I then normally get an earlier first train so that if its late I can still get the connection.
In most cases I wouldn't expect a connection to be held - its just not realistic on a busy railway.
This Takt concept sounds very slow if the train has to sit at every interchange for ages.