False destinations on trains from Reading heading towards Paddington

[cactustwirly]

I'm not quite sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me anymore! I was just responding to your statement that "The so-called 'false destination' is only shown on the departure screens of the train's originating station..."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is false. The stopper from Didcot to Paddington is listed as for Ealing Broadway at both Didcot (I think) *and* Reading, which is most certainly not the originating station.

Yes, but what @coppercapped is saying is that Reading is the originating station for 2tph of the 4tph stoppers between Reading and London!

 

[cholsey-choose]

Why would anyone be confused?

The passengers on board that train at Paddington should all be going to stations as far out as Cholsey - you know, all the stations listed on the departure boards and the screens inside the trains. They couldn't care less about where it eventually finishes its journey.

Passengers travelling from London to Didcot won't be on board, which is the whole point of the system - to keep people wanting to travel to the end point off the slower stopping trains and get them on to other trains that will get them to those places much more quickly.

Here's a scenario in which someone might be confused. In fact, I know this situation has happened, but not to precisely these stations in my friend's case. Foreign friends are visiting, fly to a London airport and get to Paddington. We tell them, "get to Cholsey station and then phone us", because we live near that station. At Paddington, there are trains listed for Didcot Parkway and for Cholsey. Foreign friends have no idea where these places are or that Didcot is near Cholsey. They see a train for Cholsey on platform 11, and get on it. Robot voice says "welcome on this train to Didcot". They think they must have got on the wrong train.

Surely you can see how that can happen? Rarely, I grant, you, but it has happened to someone I know, with another station.

Ever heard of marketing? They add up the fastest GWR journey time to Paddington and the Crossrail time through the tunnel, which will knock about 10 minutes off getting to Canary Wharf, compared with the Tube, for example. It didn't say 'substantially faster while sitting on a Crossrail train for the entire journey from Reading', did it?

Yes, and in marketing you can make puff claims but what you can't do is say something that is literally and undeniably false. Ever heard of false advertising?

If there is just *one* place in London that you can reach faster from Reading with Crossrail, than at present, then I agree it's not strictly false advertising. Thought it is misleading. Are you saying it'll be faster door-to-door to reach Canary Wharf from Reading using Crossrail than it is at present? If so, the advert has no real problems.

 

[cactustwirly]

Here's a scenario in which someone might be confused. In fact, I know this situation has happened, but not to precisely these stations in my friend's case. Foreign friends are visiting, fly to a London airport and get to Paddington. We tell them, "get to Cholsey station and then phone us", because we live near that station. At Paddington, there are trains listed for Didcot Parkway and for Cholsey. Foreign friends have no idea where these places are or that Didcot is near Cholsey. They see a train for Cholsey on platform 11, and get on it. Robot voice says "welcome on this train to Didcot". They think they must have got on the wrong train.

Surely you can see how that can happen? Rarely, I grant, you, but it has happened to someone I know, with another station.



Yes, and in marketing you can make puff claims but what you can't do is say something that is literally and undeniably false. Ever heard of false advertising?

If there is just *one* place in London that you can reach faster from Reading with Crossrail, than at present, then I agree it's not strictly false advertising. Thought it is misleading. Are you saying it'll be faster door-to-door to reach Canary Wharf from Reading using Crossrail than it is at present? If so, the advert has no real problems.

Yes if you change at Paddington

 

[cholsey-choose]

Yes, but what @coppercapped is saying is that Reading is the originating station for 2tph of the 4tph stoppers between Reading and London!

Right but what about the other 2ph?

Edit: what I mean is that she made the very specific claim that false destinations are only ever displayed at the originating station of the train. That is clearly false. At least on some servives (stoppers from Didcot to Paddington), the false destination is displayed at an intermediate station (Reading). If you screw up and say something false, you should just admit it.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Yes if you change at Paddington

Can you be clearer? I'm not sure what you mean. Can you spell out the two routes and their times please?

Edit: I'm just looking for one specific route to a place in London where Crossrail will make it faster from Reading. That would make the advertising I saw true, though perhaps still misleading.

I think many people see that it will make journeys from Reading more convenient, which it will, and falsely infer that it will make them faster, which in most/all cases, it won't.

Edit edit: the Crossrail website claims Reading-Canary Wharf will take 68 minutes. Right now google maps says 63 minutes with existing services (GWR-Bakerloo-Jubilee). So Crossrail undeniably more convenient for that journey, but not faster.

 

[cactustwirly]

Can you be clearer? I'm not sure what you mean. Can you spell out the two routes and their times please?

Edit: I'm just looking for one specific route to a place in London where Crossrail will make it faster from Reading. That would make the advertising I saw true, though perhaps still misleading.

I think many people see that it will make journeys from Reading more convenient, which it will, and falsely infer that it will make them faster, which in most/all cases, it won't.

Edit edit: the Crossrail website claims Reading-Canary Wharf will take 68 minutes. Right now google maps says 63 minutes with existing services (GWR-Bakerloo-Jubilee). So Crossrail undeniably more convenient for that journey, but not faster.

The 68 minutes is on the direct service from Reading, which only runs every 30 minutes and will stop everywhere!
If you get the fast service from Reading to Paddington, it'll do the journey in ~ 23 minutes, and the XR journey from Paddington to Canary Wharf is 17 minutes (with trains every 5 minutes).
So your looking at 45 - 50 minutes journey time.

 

[cactustwirly]

Right but what about the other 2ph?

Edit: what I mean is that she made the very specific claim that false destinations are only ever displayed at the originating station of the train. That is clearly false. At least on some servives (stoppers from Didcot to Paddington), the false destination is displayed at an intermediate station (Reading). If you screw up and say something false, you should just admit it.

Yeah so the stoppers at Reading (including the ones that start at Didcot) are advertised as 'Ealing Broadway', unless it's late at night/early morning when they are the fastest services.

 

[43096]

I'm not quite sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me anymore! I was just responding to your statement that "The so-called 'false destination' is only shown on the departure screens of the train's originating station..."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is false. The stopper from Didcot to Paddington is listed as for Ealing Broadway at both Didcot (I think) *and* Reading, which is most certainly not the originating station.

Regardless of the utter pedantry, it's pretty clear why it is done and what the logic behind it is.

 

[Esker-pades]

This is where the railways can't win. If false destinations are used, we get the above complaints and some confused people. If normal destinations are used, you get people jumping on the first train and then getting annoyed that it takes 2-3 times longer than they thought. Whatever system one uses, it leaves people complaining about something.

 

[coppercapped]

Yeah so the stoppers at Reading (including the ones that start at Didcot) are advertised as 'Ealing Broadway', unless it's late at night/early morning when they are the fastest services.

Exactly!

I still cannot understand why anyone is having a problem with the concept.

 

[cholsey-choose]

The 68 minutes is on the direct service from Reading, which only runs every 30 minutes and will stop everywhere!
If you get the fast service from Reading to Paddington, it'll do the journey in ~ 23 minutes, and the XR journey from Paddington to Canary Wharf is 17 minutes (with trains every 5 minutes).
So your looking at 45 - 50 minutes journey time.

D'oh! You're absolutely right, sorry, and I was wrong. I don't know why I didn't think of that!

 

[cholsey-choose]

This is where the railways can't win. If false destinations are used, we get the above complaints and some confused people. If normal destinations are used, you get people jumping on the first train and then getting annoyed that it takes 2-3 times longer than they thought. Whatever system one uses, it leaves people complaining about something.

So I think my main reason for disliking it is that it involves deception. It's absolutely standard that trains are advertised by their final destination that passengers can reach. False destinations are basically lying to the public. And it's not like express/non-express services are this mega obscure concept that nobody can understand - they are even used on eg the Metropolitan line IIRC. In Japan there's certainly a real distinction between regular/express/super-express trains. Do any foreign countries use false destinations?

But I regognise that's a fairly niche concern, and that's why I think it wouldn't be so bad if at the stations that used these false destinations, there was an explanatory note, which you sometimes see at Oxford. Something like ('slow, overtaken services to Paddington are listed as Ealing Broadway').

And in the case of my confused friends, this could be fixed by either having such a note at Paddington on the departures boards, or having the train announcers on such trains reflect it ("welcome aboard this GWR service to Cholsey and Didcot Parkway, calling at...")

 

[coppercapped]

Here's a scenario in which someone might be confused. In fact, I know this situation has happened, but not to precisely these stations in my friend's case. Foreign friends are visiting, fly to a London airport and get to Paddington. We tell them, "get to Cholsey station and then phone us", because we live near that station. At Paddington, there are trains listed for Didcot Parkway and for Cholsey. Foreign friends have no idea where these places are or that Didcot is near Cholsey. They see a train for Cholsey on platform 11, and get on it. Robot voice says "welcome on this train to Didcot". They think they must have got on the wrong train.

Surely you can see how that can happen? Rarely, I grant, you, but it has happened to someone I know, with another station.

SNIPPED

No, I cannot see how that happened in the case of Cholsey. There are displays in each coach which list** all the stations at which the train stops - this list will include Cholsey. The 'robot voice' also gives the name of each station, including Cholsey.

If the people can manage airports they can certainly manage trains.

**Yes, yes, I know that sometimes they don't work in one coach or another, but the chances of that happening to two foreign visitors at the precise time they that take that particular train in that particular coach must be vanishingly small.

PS. Why did you not suggest that your visitors would have had a much quicker journey if they took a non-stop train to Reading from Paddington and changed there to a train calling at Cholsey. If they are used to rail travel in their home country (practically all countries on the continent of Europe and many in other parts of the world) they should manage rail travel in the UK.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Regardless of the utter pedantry, it's pretty clear why it is done and what the logic behind it is.

Let's be real, if we weren't pedantic sorts, would we be on this board?

 

[coppercapped]

So I think my main reason for disliking it is that it involves deception. It's absolutely standard that trains are advertised by their final destination that passengers can reach. False destinations are basically lying to the public. SNIPPED

Rubbish.

What about the Waterloo - Kingston - Waterloo trains? Would you announce a departure from Waterloo as being for Waterloo? Or a train leaving London Bridge and going round the Dartford loop as being for London Bridge?

You really haven't thought these issues through.

 

[cholsey-choose]

No, I cannot see how that happened in the case of Cholsey. There are displays in each coach which list** all the stations at which the train stops - this list will include Cholsey. The 'robot voice' also gives the name of each station, including Cholsey.

If the people can manage airports they can certainly manage trains.

**Yes, yes, I know that sometimes they don't work in one coach or another, but the chances of that happening to two foreign visitors at the precise time they that take that particular train in that particular coach must be vanishingly small.

PS. Why did you not suggest that your visitors would have had a much quicker journey if they took a non-stop train to Reading from Paddington and changed there to a train calling at Cholsey. If they are used to rail travel in their home country (practically all countries on the continent of Europe and many in other parts of the world) they should manage rail travel in the UK.

Actually they are American, and from a region where rail travel is not common. Taking the train was one of the more novel aspects of the trip that they were looking forward to -- but understandably they preferred a slower route with less likelihood of getting messed up, and no problems with the off-peak evening restrictions from Paddington. (Edit: and the time saving is really not that striking, a lot of the time. Especially if you arrive at Paddington just as the stopper is about to leave, you often face the choice of getting on the stopper, or waiting 10 min at Paddington to get on a fast train to Reading, where you will wait in the cold for 15 minutes to get on the very same stopper you could have joined at Paddington.)

Both the robot voice and the displays do indicate that the train will call at Cholsey, but in a way that you have to wait. The robot voice says "Welcome aboard this Great Western Railway service to Didcot Parkway. We'll be calling at Ealing Broadway, (long list), Cholsey, and Didcot Parkway." Very easy to hear the first part, and think "oh **** wrong train", if you don't wait for the full list of stops. And why would you hang around to listen for the full list of stops.

Similarly with airports: if you were getting on a flight to New York, and the announcement said "welcome aboard this flight to Boston", wouldn't you be confused?

As for the displays, you would have a point if they had modern displays. Dutch trains for example have large TV displays in each coach that list all stopping points. (Also allowing for a decrease in the amount of pointless voice announcements.) But I don't think the single line scrolling stock-ticket displays in the new electric trains can display any more information simultaneously than similar systems from the 80s.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Rubbish.

What about the Waterloo - Kingston - Waterloo trains? Would you announce a departure from Waterloo as being for Waterloo? Or a train leaving London Bridge and going round the Dartford loop as being for London Bridge?

You really haven't thought these issues through.

Loop services are a particular exception, as I think you know. I'm not sure what the best way to announce these things is: I like M25 clockwise/counter-clockwise, or the way circle line trains are announced. What's wrong with "this is a loop train via X Y and Z". That's how the (similarly looping) Yamanote line trains in Tokyo are announced, IIRC.

There being an exception is compatible with something being the standard.

(I also don't like your condescending tone, by the way.)

 

[43096]

Let's be real, if we weren't pedantic sorts, would we be on this board?

Fair point, well made!

 

[cactustwirly]

Actually they are American, and from a region where rail travel is not common. Taking the train was one of the more novel aspects of the trip that they were looking forward to -- but understandably they preferred a slower route with less likelihood of getting messed up, and no problems with the off-peak evening restrictions from Paddington.

Both the robot voice and the displays do indicate that the train will call at Cholsey, but in a way that you have to wait. The robot voice says "Welcome aboard this Great Western Railway service to Didcot Parkway. We'll be calling at Ealing Broadway, (long list), Cholsey, and Didcot Parkway." Very easy to hear the first part, and think "oh **** wrong train", if you don't wait for the full list of stops. And why would you hang around to listen for the full list of stops.

Similarly with airports: if you were getting on a flight to New York, and the announcement said "welcome aboard this flight to Boston", wouldn't you be confused?

As for the displays, you would have a point if they had modern displays. Dutch trains for example have large TV displays in each coach that list all stopping points. (Also allowing for a decrease in the amount of pointless voice announcements.) But I don't think the single line scrolling stock-ticket displays in the new electric trains can display any more information simultaneously than similar systems from the 80s.

Perhaps this issue should be mitigated, with a notice on the departure screens; like "local stopping service which continues to Didcot Parkway "

 

[coppercapped]

Let's be real, if we weren't pedantic sorts, would we be on this board?

Yes. I hope to learn something about train operation, the technology and the railway business generally.

Actually they are American, and from a region where rail travel is not common. Taking the train was one of the more novel aspects of the trip that they were looking forward to -- but understandably they preferred a slower route with less likelihood of getting messed up, and no problems with the off-peak evening restrictions from Paddington.

Both the robot voice and the displays do indicate that the train will call at Cholsey, but in a way that you have to wait. The robot voice says "Welcome aboard this Great Western Railway service to Didcot Parkway. We'll be calling at Ealing Broadway, (long list), Cholsey, and Didcot Parkway." Very easy to hear the first part, and think "oh **** wrong train", if you don't wait for the full list of stops. And why would you hang around to listen for the full list of stops.

Similarly with airports: if you were getting on a flight to New York, and the announcement said "welcome aboard this flight to Boston", wouldn't you be confused?

As for the displays, you would have a point if they had modern displays. Dutch trains for example have large TV displays in each coach that list all stopping points. (Also allowing for a decrease in the amount of pointless voice announcements.) But I don't think the single line scrolling stock-ticket displays in the new electric trains can display any more information simultaneously than similar systems from the 80s.

I don't buy this argument. You are saying that they arrived from the USA, presumably with luggage, and then wanted to save money by buying an off-peak ticket to Cholsey and then travel in the evening peak? It was hard work to get into a train in Paddington at that time of day (as you said it was some time ago so it might well have been a 3 coach Class 165) let alone trying to board it with luggage.

When I have taken flights which are multi-stop the stops are listed on the departure boards and the gate and all the stops will be announced by the flight personnel. In any event the flight number will be the same throughout the journey and is printed on the boarding card. In fact sometimes the flight number will be the same even if there is a change of aircraft partway through the journey and one has to disembark. I have never come across the situation that you describe.

As to what you charmingly call 'false destinations' there is a similar set of circumstances in Germany which could be called the 'case of the vanished stops'. For long distance trains with many stops the departure boards will show the first stop and then only the main calling points for the rest of the journey. So an long distance train leaving Munich and running via Stuttgart to Köln and then on to, say, Essen will be displayed at Munich as calling at Augsburg, Stuttgart, Mainheim, Köln and Essen. The displays will omit the other intermediate stops, such as Ulm between Augsburg and Stuttgart; for this information one has to use the electronic journey planners or the printed departure sheets in the station. This was also confusing the first time I came across it, but after that I knew how the system worked. I would argue that the UK system which shows all the stops is superior and less likely to cause confusion.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Yes. I hope to learn something about train operation, the technology and the railway business generally.

I don't buy this argument. You are saying that they arrived from the USA, presumably with luggage, and then wanted to save money by buying an off-peak ticket to Cholsey and then travel in the evening peak? It was hard work to get into a train in Paddington at that time of day (as you said it was some time ago so it might well have been a 3 coach Class 165) let alone trying to board it with luggage.

No I'm not saying that. I've fuzzied up the details a bit to avoid identifying myself, and remember I said that Cholsey wasn't the station involved. (You can probably guess which one was.) I only mentioned the evening peak issue as another reason one might prefer to take the stopper.

These are intelligent people who were looking forward to getting here by train, so I said "get to Cholsey station then call me and I'll walk over, or call if you have any questions". That's not especially unusual, not everybody needs their hands held.

And yes, getting from Stansted or Luton to Cholsey with luggage is no fun! (I also pointedly didn't say that the UK was their first destination from the UK. You make a lot of unjustified assumptions.)

When I have taken flights which are multi-stop the stops are listed on the departure boards and the gate and all the stops will be announced by the flight personnel. In any event the flight number will be the same throughout the journey and is printed on the boarding card. In fact sometimes the flight number will be the same even if there is a change of aircraft partway through the journey and one has to disembark. I have never come across the situation that you describe.

As you know, flights are quite different in this respect: in the UK, there are no publicly-accessible trian numbers, and many people have walk-up tickets. Train numbers would be another solution to the issue.

But still, answer the question. Suppose that you were going to take a flight to New York, which was a multi-stop one. The announcements all listed it as calling at Washington, Detroit, and New York. (So here New York is the false destination.) But you get on the plane, and the announcer says "welcome aboard this flight to Boston". (Boston of course being the equivalent of the real/secret final destination.) Are you really telling me that this wouldn't confuse you, at least for a second? I'm talking hypotheticals ere.

As to what you charmingly call 'false destinations' there is a similar set of circumstances in Germany which could be called the 'case of the vanished stops'. For long distance trains with many stops the departure boards will show the first stop and then only the main calling points for the rest of the journey. So an long distance train leaving Munich and running via Stuttgart to Köln and then on to, say, Essen will be displayed at Munich as calling at Augsburg, Stuttgart, Mainheim, Köln and Essen. The displays will omit the other intermediate stops, such as Ulm between Augsburg and Stuttgart; for this information one has to use the electronic journey planners or the printed departure sheets in the station. This was also confusing the first time I came across it, but after that I knew how the system worked. I would argue that the UK system which shows all the stops is superior and less likely to cause confusion.

Wait why do you have a problem with the 'false destinations' terminology? Isn't that an accepted/semi-official way of referring to this practice.

In fact I have encountered that issue in Germany, too: it confused me because I was expecting to get off at the fourth stop. (Can't remember the details, it was donkeys years ago.) I remember thinking that they should put an ellipsis in to represent the skipped stops, or a note saying "not all destinations shown"; which they may have done -- at the time, my German wasn't of a level where I wouldn't have been able to understand such a note.

 

[tommy2215]

What's wrong with "this is a loop train via X Y and Z". That's how the (similarly looping) Yamanote line trains in Tokyo are announced, IIRC.

If loop trains showed their final destination at all stations en route, it would undoubtedly lead to many passengers at stations like Vauxhall spotting London Waterloo on the information screens, thinking the train will be a few minutes ride to Waterloo, only to find the journey is quite a lot longer than they expected. In turn this would mean loads more complaints to the train companies about how confusing such services are.

 

[cholsey-choose]

If loop trains showed their final destination at all stations en route, it would undoubtedly lead to many passengers at stations like Vauxhall spotting London Waterloo on the information screens, thinking the train will be a few minutes ride to Waterloo, only to find the journey is quite a lot longer than they expected. In turn this would mean loads more complaints to the train companies about how confusing such services are.

Yes I agree. I think we can agree that loop trains are a genuinely unusual circimstance, because depending on when you count the journey as having started, they don't really have a final destination distinct from the originating station! But because they are so odd, most people (even those of us who think false destinations are silly) would agree that something special needs to be done with them.

Same for loop buses and roads by the way.

 

[JN114]

Yes I agree. I think we can agree that loop trains are a genuinely unusual circimstance, because depending on when you count the journey as having started, they don't really have a final destination distinct from the originating station! But because they are so odd, most people (even those of us who think false destinations are silly) would agree that something special needs to be done with them.

Same for loop buses and roads by the way.

Loop trains with false destinations are no different to non-loop trains. The false destination serves the same purpose.

 

[coppercapped]

No I'm not saying that. I've fuzzied up the details a bit to avoid identifying myself, and remember I said that Cholsey wasn't the station involved. (You can probably guess which one was.) I only mentioned the evening peak issue as another reason one might prefer to take the stopper.

These are intelligent people who were looking forward to getting here by train, so I said "get to Cholsey station then call me and I'll walk over, or call if you have any questions". That's not especially unusual, not everybody needs their hands held.

And yes, getting from Stansted or Luton to Cholsey with luggage is no fun! (I also pointedly didn't say that the UK was their first destination from the UK. You make a lot of unjustified assumptions.)



As you know, flights are quite different in this respect: in the UK, there are no publicly-accessible trian numbers, and many people have walk-up tickets. Train numbers would be another solution to the issue.

But still, answer the question. Suppose that you were going to take a flight to New York, which was a multi-stop one. The announcements all listed it as calling at Washington, Detroit, and New York. (So here New York is the false destination.) But you get on the plane, and the announcer says "welcome aboard this flight to Boston". (Boston of course being the equivalent of the real/secret final destination.) Are you really telling me that this wouldn't confuse you, at least for a second? I'm talking hypotheticals ere.



Wait why do you have a problem with the 'false destinations' terminology? Isn't that an accepted/semi-official way of referring to this practice.

In fact I have encountered that issue in Germany, too: it confused me because I was expecting to get off at the fourth stop. (Can't remember the details, it was donkeys years ago.) I remember thinking that they should put an ellipsis in to represent the skipped stops, or a note saying "not all destinations shown"; which they may have done -- at the time, my German wasn't of a level where I wouldn't have been able to understand such a note.

I can only respond to the data which you have presented. You said the station concerned was Cholsey , if it was another station then why try to confuse matters? It makes any sort of sensible discussion impossible. I can't comment on what is announced if the train is going elsewhere.

You also wrote, in post 62 that "fly to a London airport and get to Paddington". Using a normal understanding of English and with the absence of any other remark, it implies that they went directIy from the airport to Paddington - if it was Paddington. If they had dropped their bags en route between the airport and station where they started their journey then taking a peak-hour stopper from there all the way to Cholsey - or whereever the actual station was - makes more sense. It is difficult to make any sort of comment if part of the story is missing.

Your point about the multi-stop flight is irrelevant. It is in fact a false comparison because access to flights is controlled at the gates and the boarding card checked before one is allowed on board - unlike most train travel - so there is no need to announce a 'false destination' and it is not done. No cabin announcements that I have heard simply say this flight is to the final destination and then stop. All the stops are listed - at least in the flights I used in the western USA.

Apropos of which - I have never heard the expression 'false destination' before.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Loop trains with false destinations are no different to non-loop trains. The false destination serves the same purpose.

I'm not totally sure about that, though I admit it's a matter of interpretation. With linear trains, the train does have a destination, it's just considered a good idea to lie to new passengers about what that destination is. For reasons I can understand, but don't entirely agree with.

I can see how in a way that's true of loop trains, so in those cases the non-deceptive way of signing them would be something like 'London Bridge (loop)' or 'Loop Service' or 'Dartford Loop'.

Edit: but I think the rationale for lying in the case of loop trains is stronger, since almost nobody will intend to take the loop all the way around to the destination/origin. (Could a non-split ticket even be bought for that journey?)

I'm not a fanatic against false destinations, but I think we should all be more open about their downsides. That's why I think an explanatory note in the (relatively few) stations that use them would be at least helpful, and cost next to nothing.

 

[cholsey-choose]

I can only respond to the data which you have presented. You said the station concerned was Cholsey , if it was another station then why try to confuse matters? It makes any sort of sensible discussion impossible. I can't comment on what is announced if the train is going elsewhere.

Did you not read the following which I wrote? "Here's a scenario in which someone might be confused. In fact, I know this situation has happened, but not to precisely these stations in my friend's case. Foreign friends are visiting, fly to a London airport and get to Paddington...."

So if you are going to be responding to the data, maybe you should read more carefully?

(If you know anything about how GWR services have changed in the last 2 years or so, you should be able to guess what the relevant station is.)

You also wrote, in post 62 that "fly to a London airport and get to Paddington". Using a normal understanding of English and with the absence of any other remark, it implies that they went directIy from the airport to Paddington - if it was Paddington. If they had dropped their bags en route between the airport and station where they started their journey then taking a peak-hour stopper from there all the way to Cholsey - or whereever the actual station was - makes more sense. It is difficult to make any sort of comment if part of the story is missing.

Again, either I'm being unclear or you don't read carefully. They did come directly from the airport to Paddington. What they didn't do was come direct from the USA. There were other countries in between.

All you need to know about the story is that because of the use of false destinations, my friends were confused because they were getting on a train that was announced for one destination, but then the robot voice announces a welcome for a train at a different destination.

Your point about the multi-stop flight is irrelevant. It is in fact a false comparison because access to flights is controlled at the gates and the boarding card checked before one is allowed on board - unlike most train travel - so there is no need to announce a 'false destination' and it is not done. No cabin announcements that I have heard simply say this flight is to the final destination and then stop. All the stops are listed - at least in the flights I used in the western USA.

I agree the airport comparison is a bit misleading. But, of course, it was you who brought airports into this, in post #73: "If the people can manage airports they can certainly manage trains."

My point in response was that (as you have noted) airports have a variety of different measures (like boarding pass checks etc) that make things less confusing. If airports operated in the same way as UK trains and used false destinations, there would equally be a potential for confusion.

As you note, all stops on a flight are listed. But the point is that this does NOT happen with UK train false destinations, at least before you board the train/flight itself.

Apropos of which - I have never heard the expression 'false destination' before.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you should be more humble given your admitted lack of knowledge? If you enter the following search in google

site:railforums.co.uk "false destination"

you will see that it is a reasonably common phrase.

And funnily enough here http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stati...Staff_Web_Service_User_Guide_Issue_1a_(2).pdf is an internal railway software guide that explains the software code used on displays. From 2012. Here is a quote from page 9:

falseDest A False Destination that should be displayed for this location.
fdTiploc The Tiploc code of a False Destination.

I'm not getting much out of this conversation anymore, since you seem so keen to not read what I write carefully, make big assumptions, and then act like you have some kind of "gotcha!", so this will be my last response to you.

 

[jimm]

Here's a scenario in which someone might be confused. In fact, I know this situation has happened, but not to precisely these stations in my friend's case. Foreign friends are visiting, fly to a London airport and get to Paddington. We tell them, "get to Cholsey station and then phone us", because we live near that station. At Paddington, there are trains listed for Didcot Parkway and for Cholsey. Foreign friends have no idea where these places are or that Didcot is near Cholsey. They see a train for Cholsey on platform 11, and get on it. Robot voice says "welcome on this train to Didcot". They think they must have got on the wrong train.

If they want to get to Cholsey (or anywhere else...) the robot voice and scrolling screen also say 'this trains calls at' (whether on a Turbo or 387) and lists each call. So where is the problem, where is the confusion? They are on a train stopping where they want to go. There are uniformed GWR staff at the gates and on the platforms they could ask if they wanted reassurance.

Confusion among overseas visitors wanting a fast journey between London and Oxford and vice versa was the precise reason why giving the last stop before the terminating point was introduced on GW semi-fasts in the first place. There were - and still are - far more of those people travelling to our of and back to Paddington than ever want to go to Cholsey, or any other top-secret mystery intermediate destination... Similarly, in the current case of 387s terminating at Didcot, a lot of business travellers from abroad are heading to Milton Park from London and want a fast service to Didcot. And passengers between Reading and London all want the fastest possible journey - which they are not going to get by boarding a semi-fast out of Reading, are they?

This system has worked perfectly well for a number of years now and is here to stay.

The marketing claim is not literally and undeniably false - as has been pointed out above by me and others. By using Crossrail it will be possible to reach any point Crossrail serves within central and east London (and beyond) faster from Reading by using Crossrail, even if it involves using GWR first then a change to Crossrail at Paddington - it will always be faster than GWR+Tube is to those places right now.

I'm not getting much out of this conversation anymore, since you seem so keen to not read what I write carefully, make big assumptions, and then act like you have some kind of "gotcha!", so this will be my last response to you.

You seem keen not to absorb anything that anyone has written in response to your posts. So far as I can tell since I last looked yesterday and this point today, your position has not shifted an inch, in spite of anything anyone has said.

 

[cholsey-choose]

If they want to get to Cholsey (or anywhere else...) the robot voice and scrolling screen also say 'this trains calls at' (whether on a Turbo or 387) and lists each call. So where is the problem, where is the confusion? They are on a train stopping where they want to go. There are uniformed GWR staff at the gates and on the platforms they could ask if they wanted reassurance.

Confusion among overseas visitors wanting a fast journey between London and Oxford and vice versa was the precise reason why giving the last stop before the terminating point was introduced on GW semi-fasts in the first place. There were - and still are - far more of those people travelling to our of and back to Paddington than ever want to go to Cholsey, or any other top-secret mystery intermediate destination... Similarly, in the current case of 387s terminating at Didcot, a lot of business travellers from abroad are heading to Milton Park from London and want a fast service to Didcot. And passengers between Reading and London all want the fastest possible journey - which they are not going to get by boarding a semi-fast out of Reading, are they?

This system has worked perfectly well for a number of years now and is here to stay.

The marketing claim is not literally and undeniably false - as has been pointed out above by me and others. By using Crossrail it will be possible to reach any point Crossrail serves within central and east London (and beyond) faster from Reading by using Crossrail, even if it involves using GWR first then a change to Crossrail at Paddington - it will always be faster than GWR+Tube is to those places right now.



You seem keen not to absorb anything that anyone has written in response to your posts. So far as I can tell since I last looked yesterday and this point today, your position has not shifted an inch, in spite of anything anyone has said.

Perhaps if you're going to accuse me of not shifting an inch, you should read the thread properly? In post 71 I clearly conceded that I was wrong about he Crossrail marketing.

As for false destinations, everything you say is true, but I've also responded to it. Yes, there is a good reason for false destinations (there are more people going to Oxford than to Cholsey, though that is substantially less true for Didcot). And yes, the confusion can be resolved, by listening to the very end of the voice announcement, or asking someone. But none of that changes that there was a moment of confusion. Are you so wedded to the policy that you can't admit that there could possibly be a downside for someone, anywhere?

This is why I've been suggesting intermediate solutions like posting an explanatory note at stations that use false destinations, as you sometimes see at Oxford. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not a fanatic against false destinations. Even though I don't like them, I can see the use.

 

[Mintona]

I can see an argument for having Ealing Broadway (for example) as the headline station on the departure board, but ‘(Train continues to London Paddington)’ at the end of the list of stations.

Something along the lines of

EALING BROADWAY 13.08

Calling at
Twyford
Maidenhead
<snip>
Southall
EALING BROADWAY

(Train continues to London Paddington)

Just covers all eventualities then.