Was your second labour shorter?

[Gerdticker]

Question for those who had relatively straightforward vaginal births (so not including breech/back to back) ....

Is it true that the second labour is usually shorter?

(I appreciate that more complex labours will likely take longer, so just looking for answers from those where things were fairly ‘normal’!)

Thanks guys x

My first Labour was about seven hours from the first contractions, second was three.

Pregnant with my second so following with interest!

My grandmother's first labour was 36 hours and her second 12. We think my mother's first was 9 hours and her second 6.

First was around 12.
2nd was induced, and around 6.

From first contractions, no. But mild enough to do stuff and just pause when they were happening but actually it hurts, I need to go to hospital phase, 10 hours vs 3 hours.

My 2nd labour was so quick I didn't even make it to the birth centre!
First birth was a nice calming water birth which took around 5-6 hours from when I was 4cm

2nd birth had mild contractions, things ramped up a bit at 8-8.30am, called the midwife who told me to come in but don't rush, then ended up giving birth to him at 10am in the hospital car park!

Yes ,but had tough first labour of about 36 hrs , second one was about 6 and a breeze in comparison

So short. only made it to the hospital in time! I think maybe an hour after I arrived

Yes, two straightforward deliveries. 27 hrs first time, 2 hrs second time

I wasn’t quite prepared for the speed of the second!

First labour 24 hours
2nd labour, less than an hour. Just about got to hospital and was still fully dressed when I gave birth
3rd labour was 4 hours

Nope, first was very quick, like six/seven hours. Second was about twelve hours.

Yes dd 5 hours, ds 15 minutes.

First was 6hrs active labour. Second was 50min. Pushing stage is down as 1min on my notes . It bloody hurt the second time!!

First was 7hrs, second 4 hrs, third was about an hour.

With first it was 2 days from first contraction, with the baby arriving 13 hours after we were admitted to hospital. The second was 23 hours overall, but less than 2 in active labour, and the early stage was much more manageable so I was pretty much able to just carry on with my day.

Much quicker.
First signs with first labour were waters breaking and then dd arrived about 9 hours later after an epidural and traumatic forceps delivery.
Second time I walked into hospital after having some pains and gave birth less than 2 hours later, no time for an epidural. Had an episiotomy though, didn't even feel it.

Both straightforward. First was 14 hours from waters breaking - second was 7 from waters breaking. The second was a lot more painful though which I think was because it was quicker.

@PinkSpring

That’s interesting- you’re the only person so far where it was a longer labour second time around!

I wonder, did you ever figure out a reason why it might have been that way? Or just one of those things?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/childbirth/3848123-If-youve-given-birth-at-least-twice-how-long-did-each-take-Was-the-second-much-faster

@Gerdticker - I know, I was so pissed off as EVERYONE said the second will be even quicker, I had a home birth both times (first was an unexpected home birth as she arrived so fast) but they really encouraged it for the second as they were concerned I wouldn't even get to the hospital in time

I felt robbed!!

My first labour was three hours my second was 2 days stuck on 4cm and it was horrible 😭 so I think everybody's different to be honest x

No my second was longer, much more drawn out, needed waters breaking etc

1st labour 19hrs
2nd labour 40mins

@ParkheadParadise

40 minutes! Wow really; was that active labour, or from the first ‘twinge’?
Did you get any other warning - braxton Hicks or anything like that?