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

[mangyiscute]

Fourth, and this more difficult, is the question of whether a train should be held so that a connection can be made from a late-running service. Not holding a train inconveniences those wanting to change from the service that's running late. We cannot tell what inconveniences may be caused to passengers on the first train which, if held, will now be late further along its journey, but it's unrealistic to suppose that the only reason for not holding it is to maintain the TOC's on-time arrivals statistics. There must be scope to consider at what times of the day a train should be held, and for how long, and when it shouldn't be held.

I agree with all of these points, but my issue is when I've seen trains that are simply going down a branch line with no onwards routes not be held even about 2 minutes and cause a delay of an hour+ on what is a fairly popular connection, it's crazy

 

[jayah]

So if you miss the train you are utterly stuffed?

That is hardly going to fill people with confidence to use the railway.

Public transport's biggest issues are things like non-linear delays.
I can be 30 seconds later to the bus stop and be 12+ minutes late to work as a result.

Handfuls of direct trains are going to make this problem even worse.
If I'm a few seconds late my trip is effectively ruined and I might as well go home.

As a result, I have to add huge padding to the start of the journey and my effective journey time goes through the roof.

The problem isn't connections it is the fact we don't really have connections in this country. The public transport service does not look or function like a network, be that bus to rail or even between trains of the same operator. Being stuck at some desolate hole, planned or unplanned for 56 minutes is far down the hierarchy below Voyager seats or even a crowded train.

As a result most people stick to direct services and reject options with changes unless they are high frequency services where it doesn't matter.

There is little evidence in the timetables of attempts to plan for connections, besides isolated branch services and until COVID this was masked by a general trend to increase frequency which was somewhat successful in reducing some of the worst examples.

The tyranny of clockface timetables cannot come soon enough.

 

[trainophile]

Indeed, joined up transport is long overdue. For example my last bus up home from my final arrival station departs at 18:15 - I could get perfectly timed (from my starting position) LNR/WMT connecting service and arrive at 18:17 . Consequently my whole travel day ritual has to start an hour before it could have so I can get the penultimate bus, which involves an element of rushing to get things done and get to the station when I'm setting out.

Have considered suggesting that the bus company moves the last bus to 18:25 (to allow time for any slight delay and getting over the bridge/exit on arrival) but it would probably skew their entire driver schedule or be unworkable for some other reason. Despite starting from the station it's perhaps geared to getting the last of the town working commuters home, and if they finish at 17:30 would mean more waiting around for them.

Last bus 18:15 - you Southerners don't know you're born!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bus services in the South East outside London are generally woeful. The Home Counties aren't interested in subsidising them as there's a massive car culture. Buses in the Home Counties are mostly just for non drivers.

 

[jayah]

Indeed, joined up transport is long overdue. For example my last bus up home from my final arrival station departs at 18:15 - I could get perfectly timed (from my starting position) LNR/WMT connecting service and arrive at 18:17 . Consequently my whole travel day ritual has to start an hour before it could have so I can get the penultimate bus, which involves an element of rushing to get things done and get to the station when I'm setting out.

Have considered suggesting that the bus company moves the last bus to 18:25 (to allow time for any slight delay and getting over the bridge/exit on arrival) but it would probably skew their entire driver schedule or be unworkable for some other reason. Despite starting from the station it's perhaps geared to getting the last of the town working commuters home, and if they finish at 17:30 would mean more waiting around for them.

Last bus 18:15 - you Southerners don't know you're born!

Buses tend to be more clockface than trains, and as the trains usually aren't, especially in the morning and evenings, the buses generally plan their timetables as if the train did not exist.

If you take Taunton and Minehad, whose times are in the railway timetables and logically might be the 'most coordinated', the trains from London that leave Paddington roughly on the hour, arrive at 8 different minutes past the hour (just on weekdays) usually about xx45.
From Bristol it looks like about 6 different minutes past the hour, but usually about xx15 which already presents a dilemma.
The buses to Minehead actually leave at xx09 and xx39, from a little way outside the station.

The bus arrives at xx10 and xx40
The trains are usually xx53 to Bristol and xx42 to London so my unfortunate conclusion would be that while a stopped clock can be correct twice a day, despite a 30min bus frequency it would be difficult to achieve worse connections without actively trying.

Comments about the dismal level of bus services apply pretty much anywhere in England, outside a PTE area.

 

[TUC]

Is this really a major issue? Unless one lives near a mainline station or plans to separately travel to one to start the journey, most longer distance journeys will involve at least one change.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Is this really a major issue? Unless one lives near a mainline station or plans to separately travel to one to start the journey, most longer distance journeys will involve at least one change.

If the way of gettiong to the mainline station is a high frequency service such as the Underground. it's not an issue - miss a Tube and there will be another in a few minutes - and one times ones journey to Kiungs Cross/Eustion whatever to take account of that. (Even in suburbia, with 4tph, I always aim to get the train before the one which will make a comfortable connection, because SWR). But if you are making a liong disatnce journey further afield, and connecting between two 1 tph services (or worse, for example if your destination is somewhere like Whitby or Betws-y-Coed or Fort William), a missed connection can really foul up your day. (Or your night, if your missed connection means you can't get to your final destination that night - an hour late into Glasgow isn't so bad - unless your bed is in Inverness and the last train has gone without you).

 

[Krokodil]

Is this really a major issue? Unless one lives near a mainline station or plans to separately travel to one to start the journey, most longer distance journeys will involve at least one change.

If the railway wants to survive, it needs to attract and retain new customers. Providing direct trains to popular destinations is part of this.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Interestingly, although I used to be more wary of changes on some train journeys than on bus journeys in London, with the cutting (and cutting back) of so many central London bus routes in recent years, I now have such a dread of the hassle and wasted time of most of my bus journeys these days that I face complex train journeys - relatively at least - with equanimity. So maybe these things are all relative...

 

[miklcct]

Is this really a major issue? Unless one lives near a mainline station or plans to separately travel to one to start the journey, most longer distance journeys will involve at least one change.

Most shorter and medium distance journeys won't involve any changes, especially if one has stations on multiple lines within walking distance.

 

[hkstudent]

Interestingly, although I used to be more wary of changes on some train journeys than on bus journeys in London, with the cutting (and cutting back) of so many central London bus routes in recent years, I now have such a dread of the hassle and wasted time of most of my bus journeys these days that I face complex train journeys - relatively at least - with equanimity. So maybe these things are all relative...

Issue would be the more congested roads in Central London would not allow efficient bus operations, thus pushing people to the Underground would be improving the overall journey time savings of most passengers.

 

[mangyiscute]

I had a ticket to Pilning on Saturday - wouldve been interested to see what wouldve happened if I had missed that train due to a late connection

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had a ticket to Pilning on Saturday - wouldve been interested to see what wouldve happened if I had missed that train due to a late connection

A taxi.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Issue would be the more congested roads in Central London would not allow efficient bus operations, thus pushing people to the Underground would be improving the overall journey time savings of most passengers.

In fact, this isn't the explanation in connection with the sort of short-ish distance journeys around and near the centre, which I'm referring to. I'm thinking of journeys where a bus is needed (because of things that are a problem to carry longer distances to stations, or people with lower mobility, etc). Many of these journeys are not quicker by Underground, even if such an alternative exists.

In the situations I'm thinking of, journey times (and ease/convenience - even the possibility of making the journey at all) have become massively worse in recent years, on account of the lower frequency on some routes, the need for extra changes, the removal of some bus stops, the disappearance of some routes, re-routing which removes direct connections, and so on.

However - although the comparison between subjective (sometimes objective!) feelings relating to extra changes on local bus journeys, and similar experiences in the case of long rail journeys, is interesting, maybe we're getting outside the immediate scope of this discussion.

 

[TUC]

Most shorter and medium distance journeys won't involve any changes, especially if one has stations on multiple lines within walking distance.

How many people outside a few cities have stations on multiple lines within walking distance?

 

[Bensonby]

Not much to add to this thread except to give one anecdote:

Between circa 2008 and 2019 I regularly travelled between London and Yorkshire to see relatives. Sometimes I did it by train, other times by car. When I scoped my train options I was tempted by the once-a-day service between Kings Cross and Skipton in the evenings. The direct train had a certain convenience factor, but once I did it the significant dwell time at Leeds coupled with the fact that the catering staff got off there (meaning not more G&T’s for the remaining nearly an hour of the trip in first class) meant that there was virtually no saving in terms of time, no first class benefits, and that there was no real need to be tied to that specific evening service. I think I only used it once or twice - the potential benefit of a direct train essentially being removed by that long dwell at Leeds.

 

[30907]

Not much to add to this thread except to give one anecdote:

Between circa 2008 and 2019 I regularly travelled between London and Yorkshire to see relatives. Sometimes I did it by train, other times by car. When I scoped my train options I was tempted by the once-a-day service between Kings Cross and Skipton in the evenings. The direct train had a certain convenience factor, but once I did it the significant dwell time at Leeds coupled with the fact that the catering staff got off there (meaning not more G&T’s for the remaining nearly an hour of the trip in first class) meant that there was virtually no saving in terms of time, no first class benefits, and that there was no real need to be tied to that specific evening service. I think I only used it once or twice - the potential benefit of a direct train essentially being removed by that long dwell at Leeds.

On a good day, you could change onto the Skipton stopper and beat the through train by a few minutes

 

[Bensonby]

On a good day, you could change onto the Skipton stopper and beat the through train by a few minutes

Exactly!

 

[30907]

How many people outside a few cities have stations on multiple lines within walking distance?

Settle and Tyndrum?

 

[Bensonby]

Settle and Tyndrum?

Whyteleafe and Upper Warlingham?!

 

[Magdalia]

How many people outside a few cities have stations on multiple lines within walking distance?

Canterbury, Maidstone, Edenbridge, Croydon, Carshalton, Dorking, Farnborough, Dulwich, Catford, Penge, Streatham, Yeovil, Harrow, Enfield, Hertford, St Albans, Southend.

 

[RT4038]

Canterbury, Maidstone, Edenbridge, Croydon, Carshalton, Dorking, Farnborough, Dulwich, Catford, Penge, Streatham, Yeovil, Harrow, Enfield, Hertford, St Albans, Southend.

Canterbury and St Albans would qualify as members of the 'few cities' , and Croydon, Dulwich, Catford, Penge, Streatham, Harrow and Enfield are within the boundaries of another.

 

[43066]

How many people outside a few cities have stations on multiple lines within walking distance?

Canterbury and St Albans would qualify as members of the 'few cities' , and Croydon, Dulwich, Catford, Penge, Streatham, Harrow and Enfield are within the boundaries of another.

And what % of the UK population live in “a few cities”? Likely more than you realise; 84% of the population live in “urban areas”, and well over 10% live in London alone.

People who live in the middle of nowhere in rural areas are a small and dwindling minority.

 

[Krokodil]

I'd hazard a guess that around 50% of stations around the country are served by at least two routes.

 

[RT4038]

And what % of the UK population live in “a few cities”? Likely more than you realise; 84% of the population live in “urban areas”, and well over 10% live in London alone.

People who live in the middle of nowhere in rural areas are a small and dwindling minority.

Answer is, I don't know. However, even if one lives in 'a few cities' or certainly within an urban area, that does not mean that one is within walking distance of a railway station (and walking distance of a station is a tailored measurement depending on the ability of an individual - 2,500 yards is OK for some [but possibly not on a regular basis?], 500 too far for others, and everywhere in between). Some cities may have multiple stations (for instance, Coventry has four) but still have a majority of the population not within practicable walking distance of a railway station.

The number of people outside of a 'few cities' (and within a 'few cities' too) that have stations on multiple lines [whatever that means? - presumably not consecutive stations on the same line with the same service, e.g Aspley Guise and Woburn Sands] within walking distance, must be very small indeed. Which was the question.

 

[AlterEgo]

Canterbury and St Albans would qualify as members of the 'few cities' , and Croydon, Dulwich, Catford, Penge, Streatham, Harrow and Enfield are within the boundaries of another.

Southend is also a city.

 

[al78]

And what % of the UK population live in “a few cities”? Likely more than you realise; 84% of the population live in “urban areas”, and well over 10% live in London alone.

People who live in the middle of nowhere in rural areas are a small and dwindling minority.

Living in a city is not a sufficient condition for living within walking distance of even one station, never mind multiple stations serving different routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Living in a city is not a sufficient condition for living within walking distance of even one station, never mind multiple stations serving different routes.

Depends what you define as walking distance. I live nearly two miles from Bletchley - I do walk to it sometimes, I also sometimes walk to MKC and that's more like three and a bit, but most people wouldn't consider that walking distance. Cycling is generally my preferred way to get there (which is why provision of safe cycle facilities and decent Sheffield stands* can bring so much benefit - it widens the reach of public transport stations at a one-off fixed cost).

The usual figure used for walking distance to a public transport stop is 500m - even in big cities, most people don't manage that unless they live along the line of something like the Tube, Merseyrail or Metrolink. (That's why bus integration is really important, despite the UK's tendency to pretend it isn't a thing).

* No fancy cycle stand (bar a staffed facility) is better than a properly concreted** Sheffield stand, the basic upside down U shaped piece of thick tubular steel. Basic, simple and secure - only way you're getting the bike off is an angle grinder, which does happen, but if you ride a basic bike with a good lock odds on won't.
** Not bolted down even with threadlock - some of the ones at Bletchley are now getting rather uselessly wobbly; the railings are a better bet now.

 

[43066]

The number of people outside of a 'few cities' (and within a 'few cities' too) that have stations on multiple lines [whatever that means? - presumably not consecutive stations on the same line with the same service, e.g Aspley Guise and Woburn Sands] within walking distance, must be very small indeed. Which was the question.

Aspley Guise and Woburn Sands are both semi rural stations on the Marston Vale, right on the edge of MKC.

I’m (even in leafy outer London) a 10-15 walk from two consecutive stations on the same mainline, and around a 20 minute walk from one on another mainline! Another way to put it might be to ask: many people live within a mile of a mainline railway station? I’d suggest quite a few…

The usual figure used for walking distance to a public transport stop is 500m - even in big cities, most people don't manage that unless they live along the line of something like Merseyrail or Metrolink. (That's why bus integration is really important, despite the UK's tendency to pretend it isn't a thing).

500m seems ludicrously low for most people - that’s around five minutes! It makes sense to use that for for interchanges which need to take into account mobility issues, but that doesn’t reflect walking distance for most.

 

[Horizon22]

Depends what you define as walking distance. I live nearly two miles from Bletchley - I do walk to it sometimes, I also sometimes walk to MKC and that's more like three and a bit, but most people wouldn't consider that walking distance. Cycling is generally my preferred way to get there (which is why provision of safe cycle facilities and decent Sheffield stands* can bring so much benefit - it widens the reach of public transport stations at a one-off fixed cost).

The usual figure used for walking distance to a public transport stop is 500m - even in big cities, most people don't manage that unless they live along the line of something like the Tube, Merseyrail or Metrolink. (That's why bus integration is really important, despite the UK's tendency to pretend it isn't a thing).

* No fancy cycle stand (bar a staffed facility) is better than a properly concreted** Sheffield stand, the basic upside down U shaped piece of thick tubular steel. Basic, simple and secure - only way you're getting the bike off is an angle grinder, which does happen, but if you ride a basic bike with a good lock odds on won't.
** Not bolted down even with threadlock - some of the ones at Bletchley are now getting rather uselessly wobbly; the railings are a better bet now.

A 15 (maybe 20) minute walk is normally reasonable for most people anecdotally and that distance varies depending on your walking speed.