Chiltern loco hauled services on RTT

[StephenHunter]

Why are these pathed as Class 158s?

 

[221129]

Why are these pathed as Class 158s?

The timing load has nothing to do with what is actually booked for that service.

 

[StephenHunter]

The timing load has nothing to do with what is actually booked for that service.

True... but why is it labelled as a Sprinter when Chiltern have never had them?

 

[221129]

Because that's the timing load. Nothing to do with what is planned to run a service.

 

[43096]

Why are these pathed as Class 158s?

Virtually all the Birmingham and Oxford services are timed as such, not just the LHCS.

Not that it matters...

 

[The Planner]

They are timed as 168s, the foibles of the system present them as 158s.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The timing load has nothing to do with what is actually booked for that service.

Surely that's not true. Whilst I appreciate your point that the type of rolling stock used is not necessarily (ever) that indicated by the timing load, the two *are* strongly related because the class of train used needs to be able to keep to the timings.

 

[JonathanH]

Surely that's not true. Whilst I appreciate your point that the type of rolling stock used is not necessarily (ever) that indicated by the timing load, the two *are* strongly related because the class of train used needs to be able to keep to the timings.

Class168s can and do substitute for locomotive hauled services on Chiltern. In very limited cases the opposite is true. Seems a very good reason to have a common timing load that both can keep to.

 

[Mag_seven]

Why are these pathed as Class 158s?

So that cranks can't identify which are loco-hauled.

 

[43096]

So that cranks can't identify which are loco-hauled.

Which rather falls down when they are shown in Chiltern's timetable!

 

[DarloRich]

True... but why is it labelled as a Sprinter when Chiltern have never had them?

because that is simply the way the system churns out the information and it isnt worth the time and money to rectify an insignificant little problem that has little impact on the traveling public.

 

[yorkie]

Why are these pathed as Class 158s?

They aren't.

That's just how the timing load appears on Realtimetrains.

True... but why is it labelled as a Sprinter when Chiltern have never had them?

You are reading too much into it; see the post by D6700 (who is an experienced train planner) in the hyperlink above.

 

[PHILIPE]

Trains can be worked by any loco/unit that can maintain the timings of the timing load. It could be that timing for the LHCS locos have never found their way into the system.

 

[The Planner]

They have never been timed as anything but 168s and are unlikely to change.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

They aren't.

That's just how the timing load appears on Realtimetrains.

You are reading too much into it; see the post by D6700 (who is an experienced train planner) in the hyperlink above.

It would be useful if that post could be made a sticky. It also explains one or two things that I didn't quite understand when I actually worked trains especially as regards timings over diversionary routes.

 

[Freightmaster]

It would be useful if that post could be made a sticky.

Particularly the bit where he says:

I am pleased to see these officially approved open online systems,
but do feel that many of the questions arising are simply due to people
over-analysing things that don't really need to be analysed!

That was back in 2013, but four years on, many people still seem to be
convinced that the 'timing load' on RTT is a direct and infallible indication
of the type of train that a particular service is booked to be worked by!


MARK