2A96 1352 Liverpool - Derby

[G0ORC]

I don't know whether this is simply an error in the train schedules as used by RTT or just an oddity. We in the EM are not used to "portion" trains but this appears to be one.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80705/2017/01/27/advanced

It actually runs from Nottingham, formed off a detachment from 1L12 1352 Liverpool - Norwich which RTT shows as "1L12 1352 Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich and Derby"

Is this advertised as such from Liverpool? Something along the lines of "the leading two vehicles on departure are for Derby, the rear two for Norwich?"

Seems odd to me.

 

[PHILIPE]

I don't know whether this is simply an error in the train schedules as used by RTT or just an oddity. We in the EM are not used to "portion" trains but this appears to be one.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80705/2017/01/27/advanced

It actually runs from Nottingham, formed off a detachment from 1L12 1352 Liverpool - Norwich which RTT shows as "1L12 1352 Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich and Derby"

Is this advertised as such from Liverpool? Something along the lines of "the leading two vehicles on departure are for Derby, the rear two for Norwich?"

Seems odd to me.

Nothing to do with a through train. RTT at Nottingham indicates what the portion detaching there forms. There is a similar one for Worksop. This type of remark often shows up a locations. (Formed on/off). If travelling to Derby you would change at Sheffield and catch another EMT train to St.Pancras for Derby. Can't answer why Derby is mentioned at Liverpool

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It can be overtaken by the 1404 LM change at Crewe.
Liverpool-Crewe-Derby is an hour quicker than Liverpool-Nottingham-Derby.
It also waits 20 minutes at Nottingham, so not exactly quick.
A direct routing from Chesterfield would give a competitive journey time.
Derby-Liverpool has never been offered in recent times, not since BR stopped sending St Pancras-Liverpool trains via Matlock, Stockport TD, Northenden and the CLC route.
I think that was in the late 1950s.

 

[PHILIPE]

It can be overtaken by the 1404 LM change at Crewe.
Liverpool-Crewe-Derby is an hour quicker than Liverpool-Nottingham-Derby.
It also waits 20 minutes at Nottingham, so not exactly quick.
A direct routing from Chesterfield would give a competitive journey time.
Derby-Liverpool has never been offered in recent times, not since BR stopped sending St Pancras-Liverpool trains via Matlock, Stockport TD, Northenden and the CLC route.
I think that was in the late 1950s.

The Sheffield change is the Journey Planner response.

 

[G0ORC]

The Sheffield change is the Journey Planner response.

I appreciate its a totally impractical way of getting from Liverpool to Derby but my interest was why it was shown in this way.

It clearly is not intended to be a through train so why show it as such?

Is it just the way the software at RTT interprets a detachment en-route which then forms another train after a 20 minute wait Seems a a rather silly anomaly if it does.

 

[PHILIPE]

I appreciate its a totally impractical way of getting from Liverpool to Derby but my interest was why it was shown in this way.

It clearly is not intended to be a through train so why show it as such?

Is it just the way the software at RTT interprets a detachment en-route which then forms another train after a 20 minute wait Seems a a rather silly anomaly if it does.

Real Time Trains, although in the public domain, is not really a public Timetable document as such. This may sound strange.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I appreciate its a totally impractical way of getting from Liverpool to Derby but my interest was why it was shown in this way.

It clearly is not intended to be a through train so why show it as such?

Is it just the way the software at RTT interprets a detachment en-route which then forms another train after a 20 minute wait Seems a a rather silly anomaly if it does.

Yes, a few people did seem to miss your point! That train *does* get advertised at Liverpool as having portions, as does the 17.52 from Liverpool on a Sunday, which is shown as Norwich and Matlock. If you look at table 49 in the GBTT there are various foot notes that mention these, and others, but I would say that it's an error caused by some elements of the carriage working plans and working timetable finding their way into the public timetable. The 09.52 from Liverpool is shown as two trains, one to Norwich and the other with a foot note of "To Liverpool", which is presumably the portion that is detached at Nottingham and later returns to Liverpool attached to a Norwich - Liverpool. Going the other way, there are two 12.47 departures from Nottingham to Liverpool, one shown as coming from Norwich and the other with a foot note of "From Nottingham Eastcroft!!" The 07.46 Nottingham to Liverpool is shown as from Derby, but in practice the bit of the rake that comes in from Derby that forms the Liverpool is locked out of use until Nottingham, so that doesn't work either.

 

[louis97]

I appreciate its a totally impractical way of getting from Liverpool to Derby but my interest was why it was shown in this way.

It clearly is not intended to be a through train so why show it as such?

Is it just the way the software at RTT interprets a detachment en-route which then forms another train after a 20 minute wait Seems a a rather silly anomaly if it does.

This is down to the associations set by the planners, which at Nottingham are required for the signalling workstation to automatically enter the headcode of the trains next working. This method is also used to advertise intended detachment of services, so its hard to differentiate.

There is a train from St Pancras that shows as "Lincoln Central and London St Pancras" because the portion that detaches at Nottingham forms a train back to London. It looks like every evening the train is getting the association manually removed from the CIS to prevent it being advertised.

 

[louis97]

Is this advertised as such from Liverpool? Something along the lines of "the leading two vehicles on departure are for Derby, the rear two for Norwich?"

Seems odd to me.

I have heard it announced at Manchester, the wrong way around as well. Front for Norwich, Rear for Derby, however with the reversal at Sheffield it is actually the other way around.

 

[D1009]

This is down to the associations set by the planners, which at Nottingham are required for the signalling workstation to automatically enter the headcode of the trains next working. This method is also used to advertise intended detachment of services, so its hard to differentiate.

There is a train from St Pancras that shows as "Lincoln Central and London St Pancras" because the portion that detaches at Nottingham forms a train back to London. It looks like every evening the train is getting the association manually removed from the CIS to prevent it being advertised.

So presumably an error in the way NR data is released, rather than any glitch in the RTT software.

 

[louis97]

So presumably an error in the way NR data is released, rather than any glitch in the RTT software.

No error, there is a detachment at Nottingham and that is what is advertised in the timetable. However in this case it is purely operational and not with the intention of it being a through train and therefore advertised. An operational/unadvertised detachment code is really what is needed to cover this.

 

[JN114]

No error, there is a detachment at Nottingham and that is what is advertised in the timetable. However in this case it is purely operational and not with the intention of it being a through train and therefore advertised. An operational/unadvertised detachment code is really what is needed to cover this.

The WTT will have a detach activity to show that the train requires a detachment at Nottingham.
The CIF file will have an association to drive the ACI on EMSCC Nottingham Workstation.

The only way it should be advertised is "Front/Rear X coaches beyond Nottingham", indeed in industry managed information systems that (or words to that effect) is all that is shown. It's another example of RTT etc being a bit too clever with the information they're providing leading to accurate, of misleading results - and why RTT and OTT etc should be taken with a pinch of salt.

For people who truly understand how these things work it's no issue - it's obvious it's not intended as a through service, it's just an interpretation quirk of the data provided by NR. Unfortunately very few understand the subtle nuances of the open data feeds, and just interpret all information as "public" when within the industry a lot of time and energy is spent filtering that information to prevent misleading situations like this.

Unadvertised Detachment activity serves no benefit to the industry - we already have ways and means of filtering the information put into CIS systems and similar.

 

[louis97]

Unadvertised Detachment activity serves no benefit to the industry - we already have ways and means of filtering the information put into CIS systems and similar.

Its just unfortunate that some staff, through no fault of their own, don't know how to do that.

 

[G0ORC]

The WTT will have a detach activity to show that the train requires a detachment at Nottingham.
The CIF file will have an association to drive the ACI on EMSCC Nottingham Workstation.

The only way it should be advertised is "Front/Rear X coaches beyond Nottingham", indeed in industry managed information systems that (or words to that effect) is all that is shown. It's another example of RTT etc being a bit too clever with the information they're providing leading to accurate, of misleading results - and why RTT and OTT etc should be taken with a pinch of salt.

For people who truly understand how these things work it's no issue - it's obvious it's not intended as a through service, it's just an interpretation quirk of the data provided by NR. Unfortunately very few understand the subtle nuances of the open data feeds, and just interpret all information as "public" when within the industry a lot of time and energy is spent filtering that information to prevent misleading situations like this.

Unadvertised Detachment activity serves no benefit to the industry - we already have ways and means of filtering the information put into CIS systems and similar.

So the answer to the question that I, the OP posed here..

I appreciate its a totally impractical way of getting from Liverpool to Derby but my interest was why it was shown in this way.

It clearly is not intended to be a through train so why show it as such?

Is it just the way the software at RTT interprets a detachment en-route which then forms another train after a 20 minute wait Seems a a rather silly anomaly if it does.[/I]

.... is yes, then.

 

[Tom]

Is it just the way the software at RTT interprets a detachment en-route which then forms another train after a 20 minute wait Seems a a rather silly anomaly if it does.[/I]

.... is yes, then.

Nope. This is entirely down to a data error on the NR end as the association is shown as a public one, as opposed to an operational one. RTT corrects any errors that it can work out automatically, but clearly not here.

For people who truly understand how these things work it's no issue - it's obvious it's not intended as a through service, it's just an interpretation quirk of the data provided by NR. Unfortunately very few understand the subtle nuances of the open data feeds, and just interpret all information as "public" when within the industry a lot of time and energy is spent filtering that information to prevent misleading situations like this.

Unadvertised Detachment activity serves no benefit to the industry - we already have ways and means of filtering the information put into CIS systems and similar.

I strongly, strongly disagree. You can interpret an unadvertised detachment as coaches being dropped off as opposed to interpreting it as a full public division, which is what the flag in the CIF is intended for, and is documented as. If a downstream just drops any operational association then this alone will cause material issues in following services through.

To be clear, if RTT thinks this is a public association (and this is based on primarily the data from NR), then this is followed through and the destinations, etc, manipulated to cater for as such. If it is an operational one (which this should be), then it will not, it will merely just show the associating service informational purposes on the pages on the locations in question.

 

[JN114]

Nope. This is entirely down to a data error on the NR end as the association is shown as a public one, as opposed to an operational one. RTT corrects any errors that it can work out automatically, but clearly not here.

That's a causality assumption though.

The detachment is correctly shown as public, as only part of the train is available for use beyond Nottingham - that is useful, public information that helps people make informed decisions about where to sit in the train.

The associated schedule doesn't have a public/not public flag, and RTT assumes that because the attachment is public, that the associated schedule is public. This is not the case, and the cause of the confusing situation.

TOC info systems solve this by adding an overlay to the CIF that supersedes these "operational" associations with dummy trains that make the detachment sound much more sensible to customers - not something I expect you have the time or information to prepare, and indeed I wouldn't expect one to be provided.

Data that doesn't match your incorrect expectation of its meaning isn't necessarily erroneous.

 

[Tom]

The detachment is correctly shown as public, as only part of the train is available for use beyond Nottingham - that is useful, public information that helps people make informed decisions about where to sit in the train.

Again, I disagree. There is a location activity flag available for this. (see http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/RSPDocuments/20070801.pdf, -D is the activity flag in question). This is correctly set on this service and therefore any downstream systems complying with the standards should only need this, and a corresponding operational association.

The associated handling assumptions made (and I've spoken to NR about this on many an occasion) are for an operational association (with the above flag) for this kind of purpose.

The associated schedule doesn't have a public/not public flag, and RTT assumes that because the attachment is public, that the associated schedule is public. This is not the case, and the cause of the confusing situation.

RTT doesn't actually assume that in the slightest, the logic isn't there for it. The association in this instance actually seems erroneous from the normal data for Nottingham. I currently can see 13 active schedules at Nottingham where the public flag is marked for a divide, all but two or three are to ECS services (again, erroneously) - there are about 70-80 in there for this kinda association, implying this one is indeed an error.

 

[JN114]

Again, I disagree. There is a location activity flag available for this. (see http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/RSPDocuments/20070801.pdf, -D is the activity flag in question). This is correctly set on this service and therefore any downstream systems complying with the standards should only need this, and a corresponding operational association.

The associated handling assumptions made (and I've spoken to NR about this on many an occasion) are for an operational association (with the above flag) for this kind of purpose.

I don't dispute that the WTT has a -D activity on it, indeed I stated that (in laymans terms) in my opening reply

RTT doesn't actually assume that in the slightest, the logic isn't there for it. The association in this instance actually seems erroneous from the normal data for Nottingham. I currently can see 13 active schedules at Nottingham where the public flag is marked for a divide, all but two or three are to ECS services (again, erroneously) - there are about 70-80 in there for this kinda association, implying this one is indeed an error.

Incongruous perhaps, but that doesn't make it erroneous - which is the point I'm trying get across.

 

[greatkingrat]

This isn't anything to do with RTT specifically, if you search for Liverpool to Derby on the NRE journey planner, it also shows the 1352 from Liverpool as a through train to Derby.

 

[PHILIPE]

This isn't anything to do with RTT specifically, if you search for Liverpool to Derby on the NRE journey planner, it also shows the 1352 from Liverpool as a through train to Derby.

Journey Planner also tells you to change at Sheffield though, as it's quicker

 

[Tom]

This isn't anything to do with RTT specifically, if you search for Liverpool to Derby on the NRE journey planner, it also shows the 1352 from Liverpool as a through train to Derby.

That implies that RTT's handling is as expected then!