Tight 'connection' at Worcester Shrub Hill

[markskoda]

I took the 16.09 London Midland train from Stourbridge Junction to Worcester Shrub Hill on Saturday 14th January. Arriving on time at Shrub Hill at 16.39 and intending to travel on to Great Malvern by FGW. My London Midland pocket timetable no.14 shows a FGW service departing Shrub Hill for Malvern at 16.41
There was the usual stampede over the footbridge and several people jumped aboard the Malvern train. It set off immediately with myself and several other passengers who were bringing up the rear unable to make the connection. The despatcher (if that's the correct word) made no attempt to ascertain whether all intending passengers were boarded.
I asked the ticket office clerk (if that's the correct word) why the Malvern train didn't wait just a few seconds more.
"It's not a connecting service" I was told. "Then why is it clearly shown in the LM pocket timetable?" I enquired.
"Ah well it's a different company" he then added.
I can well imagine the furore if this had happened at my home station in The Czech Republic.

 

[Urban Gateline]

The time you travelled was in the afternoon, not the last connection, so I doubt there'd be any incentive to hold the service, perhaps it was already running late and needed to make time up. I also doubt that the 2 mins in between 16:39 and 16:41 is an official connection time! The dispatcher did the correct thing, dispatched the train ASAP, trains don't wait for people, it's the other way round

 

[34D]

I took the 16.09 London Midland train from Stourbridge Junction to Worcester Shrub Hill on Saturday 14th January. Arriving on time at Shrub Hill at 16.39 and intending to travel on to Great Malvern by FGW. My London Midland pocket timetable no.14 shows a FGW service departing Shrub Hill for Malvern at 16.41
There was the usual stampede over the footbridge and several people jumped aboard the Malvern train. It set off immediately with myself and several other passengers who were bringing up the rear unable to make the connection. The despatcher (if that's the correct word) made no attempt to ascertain whether all intending passengers were boarded.
I asked the ticket office clerk (if that's the correct word) why the Malvern train didn't wait just a few seconds more.
"It's not a connecting service" I was told. "Then why is it clearly shown in the LM pocket timetable?" I enquired.
"Ah well it's a different company" he then added.
I can well imagine the furore if this had happened at my home station in The Czech Republic.

If LM's timetable says that their 2V38 (16:39 arrival) connects with the FGW 16:41 departure 1W41 then I would claim delay repay from LM - unless I've missed one, the next train to Great Malvern is 1W45 at 17:41.

I agree that this is poor customer service. In the WTT, these particular trains are actually booked 16:41.5 so there's 30 seconds for the platform staff to play with

 

[dzug2]

The official connection time at Shrub Hill is 7 minutes.

Though I'd agree the timetabling is on the face of it uncoordinated

 

[MarkyMarkD]

Their timetable does NOT show that there is a connection between these two services. They are listed one after another simply because they are timed two minutes after each other at Shrub Hill.

2 minutes is not enough time for a connection, and you could instead have caught the train 30 minutes later from Stourbridge which runs straight through to Malvern arriving only 23 minutes later.

NRE and other websites take account of the minimum connection time and hence recommend the other (direct) route.

All of that isn't to say that the timetabling isn't daft - but that's life!

 

[Eagle]

If LM's timetable says that their 2V38 (16:39 arrival) connects with the FGW 16:41 departure 1W41 then I would claim delay repay from LM - unless I've missed one, the next train to Great Malvern is 1W45 at 17:41.

Well if it does show that as a connection, it shouldn't; a two-minute connection is ridiculous.

However, as has been pointed out, it's not listed as a connection, just as two consecutive departures.

 

[GadgetMan]

The problem with holding trains for late passengers is; there is always one more passenger making his/her way towards the train. Where do you draw the line and say enough is enough the train must go?

The dispatch staff did the right thing.

 

[Statto]

Their timetable does NOT show that there is a connection between these two services. They are listed one after another simply because they are timed two minutes after each other at Shrub Hill.

2 minutes is not enough time for a connection, and you could instead have caught the train 30 minutes later from Stourbridge which runs straight through to Malvern arriving only 23 minutes later.

NRE and other websites take account of the minimum connection time and hence recommend the other (direct) route.

All of that isn't to say that the timetabling isn't daft - but that's life!

Actually the timetable does show that there is a connection between these services at Worcester Shrub Hill, which is bonkers, given that it's a 2 min connection

 

[Eagle]

Actually the timetable does show that there is a connection between these services at Worcester Shrub Hill, which is bonkers, given that it's a 2 min connection

No, that's not a connection, that's just consecutive departures. All FGW services between Worcester and Malvern appear in this LM timetable. And coincidentally one happens to be two minutes after a LM service.

 

[Statto]

No, that's not a connection, that's just consecutive departures. All FGW services between Worcester and Malvern appear in this LM timetable. And coincidentally one happens to be two minutes after a LM service.

Ahh so thats why i'm getting mixed up, & it was the Saturday section of the timetable not Mon to Fri, the Mon to Fri only has the FGW service listed from Shrub Hill to Forgate Street.

 

[yorkie]

The problem with holding trains for late passengers is; there is always one more passenger making his/her way towards the train..

Really? That argument may well apply at busy London stations but the thought of that statement being correct at all stations across the country is rather amusing.

 

[BestWestern]

It is utterly infuriating for the passenger - and often for the staff who then have to deal with them - when services are timed to leave just as another, potentially connecting, train rolls in. It makes little sense and could in many cases be rectified with a little bit of juggling things around, but sadly it seems that the will for different companies to co-operate beyond the bare minimum just isn't there in some cases. The same applies when a connecting service is not held because of a delay of just a few short minutes, again because of a lack of integration and a blinkered view of delay minutes being far more important than the passengers.

However, it's important to point out that in all of these cases it is not the dispacthers, or the traincrews, who are to blame, it is the disjointed railway network that we have to suffer and the warped priorities which come with it. The staff 'on the ground' are simply doing their jobs having been briefed to the effect that punctuality is king. A late departure of just one minute will in most cases generate a request for an explanation from the staff working or dispatching the train, meaning that those people running from the other side of the station hoping to catch the service departing imminently are likely to be left behind.

There is a very valid point made in a post above about the nature of last minute runners, it's very true that if you wait for one you will often see another, and another, and so on. At some point you have to make the decision to cut and go, and often - from the point of view of the dreaded punctuality - that decision is best made sooner rather than later.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Really? That argument may well apply at busy London stations but the thought of that statement being correct at all stations across the country is rather amusing.

It's not just a London thing mate. It happens countless numbers of stations every day, especially in the peaks. I have seen it with my own eyes.

 

[GadgetMan]

Passenger's cannot have it both ways, they moan when the trains are late, and they moan when the train departs on time if they miss it.

I agree that the people who create the timetables could do a far better job taking into account popular connections, but thats not what the original post was moaning about.

Delaying a train at one station could result in it losing it's path over a junction further down the line for example. This could/does then result in passengers (those that had actually got themselves to the platform on time) missing onward connections. Is it fair on them to have their journeys delayed because of passengers who can't/don't get to the platform in time.

Some here will argue that a minute isn't going to lose a train it's path. But why stop at delaying a train by just a minute for passengers, may as well sit on the platform and let the passengers decide when we should dispatch the train. For those that are arguing the train should be held, how many minutes do you feel the train should be delayed by?:roll:

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Also how many times do you wait "just a minute" for a passenger? Everybody wants the train to wait for them or at their station, but nowhere else. If you have a train with ten stops, what happens when you wait "just a minute" at five of them? Are you now behind the stopping service? Did you lose your path into the station? What happens if the train you are arriving on into Worcester waited "just a minute" for somebody at Stourbridge earlier in the day and completely screwed your chances of getting the tight connection?
All of these questions are easy to answer of course. Just say that at wherever possible, the train leaves at the time published in the timetable.

Two minutes isnt a guaranteed connection, but I guess the TOC who publish the timetable feel that acknowledging the existence of the other train is information a passenger might find handy. Some might say that it causes frustration when a passenger sees it and misses it, but then if they didnt publish it in the timetable would there be a thread on this from another guy bemoaning the lack of information made available to the public when he saw the tail lamps of the Malvern train disappearing from the station and realised he might have been able to catch it had he known about it? You cant have it both ways.

 

[transmanche]

It is utterly infuriating for the passenger - and often for the staff who then have to deal with them - when services are timed to leave just as another, potentially connecting, train rolls in. It makes little sense and could in many cases be rectified with a little bit of juggling things around, but sadly it seems that the will for different companies to co-operate beyond the bare minimum just isn't there in some cases.

I often find it's timetable padding which destroys a potentially useful connection. Here's a real example: yesterday I was travelling from Gobowen to Newcastle. NRE wasn't offering me a connection into the 16:56 TPE From Manchester Piccadilly to Newcastle, so I decided to break it up a bit and look at the alternatives from Chester to Manchester. NRE offered me this via Crewe:

CTR 15:35
CRE 15:54 16:12
MAN - - - 16:49

But the 16:49 arrival is not advertised as a possible connection into the 16:56. Needless to say, the train arrived into MAN plat 5 about 5 mins early; giving me plenty of time to nip to the Sainsbury's for a sandwich, before boarding the 16:56 on plat 2.

The next service from CTR to MAN was shown by NRE as requiring a change at Oxford Road:

CTR 15:46
MCO 16:48 16:54
MAN 16:57 16:56

Although I'm not quite sure how a Blackpool>Manchester Airport TPE is going to overtake a Llandudno>MAN ATW service between MCO and MAN!

I didn't take this option as I thought it was cutting it too fine for the 16:56... but if that ATW train did connect 'properly' with the 16:56 TPE, it turns a journey that requires three or four changes into one that only needs two.

 

[radamfi]

Swiss Railways are clearly much worse than British trains because they deliberately design their timetable with connections in mind. They even wait a few minutes for late running connections. That is why Swiss Railways have such a bad reputation.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Although I'm not quite sure how a Blackpool>Manchester Airport TPE is going to overtake a Llandudno>MAN ATW service between MCO and MAN! ....

There are five platforms at Oxford Road, one is a west facing terminus, the other four are through lines where 'padding time' can easily be added in before heading down the twin track line into Piccadilly. The arrival time at Oxford Road isn't necessarily the same as the departure time.

 

[transmanche]

... Although I'm not quite sure how a Blackpool>Manchester Airport TPE is going to overtake a Llandudno>MAN ATW service between MCO and MAN!...

There are five platforms at Oxford Road, one is a west facing terminus, the other four are through lines where 'padding time' can easily be added in before heading down the twin track line into Piccadilly. The arrival time at Oxford Road isn't necessarily the same as the departure time.

That might explain it (although not excuse it) - but it's not the case in this situation. I have shown the published arr/dep times at MCO for the avoidance of doubt:

MCO a 16:48 16:52
MCO d 16:49 16:54
MAN a 16:57 16:56

As you can see, the TPE appears to be scheduled to overtake the ATW service between Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

 

[Thomas6187]

It the WTT, the Chester-Piccadilly is meant to arrive at xx54.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm still amazed people can compare Swiss Railways and ours with a straight face.

Swiss Railways are nothing like ours. They have nothing like the operational constraints and idiosyncrasies the National Rail network has.

They also carry Swiss passengers, not British ones. The expectations of the railway network from both sets of passengers differs widely.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

The population of Switzerland is also less than the population of London.

 

[87015]

I'm still amazed people can compare Swiss Railways and ours with a straight face.

Swiss Railways are nothing like ours. They have nothing like the operational constraints and idiosyncrasies the National Rail network has.

They also carry Swiss passengers, not British ones. The expectations of the railway network from both sets of passengers differs widely.

So we should expect our railway to be crap and just accept it with a smiley face?

What about the Dutch, Germans, Bulgarians, Croatians or whoever else. I'm struggling to think of a country where such an obvious connection for onward passengers with no other train for an hour would be let go or not timed as a booked connection, its just plain poor. I did get taillamped at Ljubljana last year, but there was another Maribor IC fifteen behind and they held the branch connection further up for that. Worcester SH isn't exactly New St with trains going left, right and centre on minimum headways...

 

[Badger]

It's the same argument as "why are train doors locked 30 seconds before departure when they could just leave 30 seconds earlier on the timetable". If every train waited 2 minutes for possible connections, they'd just bump into further connecting trains.

 

[WelshBluebird]

2 minutes is not enough time for a connection

Not officially of course, but several times I have made shorter connections (mainly because my incoming train was late and I really didn't fancy hanging about for the next train, so legged it across to get my connection).

 

[radamfi]

So we should expect our railway to be crap and just accept it with a smiley face?

That's the impression I get from AlterEgo's post as well, but to give him the benefit of the doubt he might have meant that because British infrastructure is pushed to the limits, it isn't possible to have a passenger friendly, connecting rail network like Switzerland.

In other words, the best Britain can hope for is by making direct services as attractive as possible. Trips involving connections are too difficult and it is best to leave that market to the car to make direct train services better.

IMO this is not acceptable unless frequencies are very high, similar to a metro-type service. If British infrastructure cannot cope with a Swiss style interconnecting train network then it needs to be expanded accordingly.

 

[GadgetMan]

British infrastructure is pushed to the limits

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Our system is used to it's max capacity on most major railway lines. You have to remember that it's not just dedicated to passenger use. Freight trains also need to be timetabled in between passenger trains with extra time allowed for their slower acceleration, increased braking time (especially when entering and exiting loops) and generally lower max speeds.

Another issue is, if you start altering departure times from stations to serve popular connections, then this may lead to an increase in the overall end to end journey times for trains; something some operators will be reluctant to do.

 

[radamfi]

Another issue is, if you start altering departure times from stations to serve popular connections, then this may lead to an increase in the overall end to end journey times for trains; something some operators will be reluctant to do.

Yes, British rail tradition is to minimise the journey time between selected origin-destination pairs, but with very long journey times between other origin-destination pairs because of long waits between trains. If you allow a modest increase in journey time to accommodate connections, you get a big reduction in journey time on journeys involving connections, so the overall journey time experienced by all passengers is reduced.

Clearly expansion of the network is required to accommodate connections and freight. If we won't do that then we have to accept that our railways are worse than they could be.

 

[PHILIPE]

If you were to retime a train 2 minutes later to make it into a connection you would find more problems later into that train's journey. This would then escalate on others and finish up with the knock on effect between Penzance and Wick.

 

[bnm]

Swiss Railways are clearly much worse than British trains because they deliberately design their timetable with connections in mind. They even wait a few minutes for late running connections. That is why Swiss Railways have such a bad reputation.

Poor comaprison. Much smaller country, fewer passenger kilometres, far fewer interchange opportunities, less intensive service....