Wrong TOC Code on RTT

[Envoy]

Why does Real Times Trains still mark TfW trains as being operated by AW (Arriva Wales) when this has not been the case for years.

 

[yorkie]

It's not at all wrong; AW is the correct TOC code for TfW.

TOC codes rarely change; if they did a lot of systems would need to be corrected/amended and this would cause a lot of additional work.

TOC codes are generally not reflective of current names, e.g. West Midlands Trains is LM, LNER is GR, Avanti is VT, and so on.

Lumo can't be LM, LO (London Overground), or LU (London Underground), so LD it is.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Just like VT is the code for Avanti and GR is the code for LNER even though GNER hasn't existed for about a decade.

 

[The Planner]

Why does Real Times Trains still mark TfW trains as being operated by AW (Arriva Wales) when this has not been the case for years.

Don't over think it, why change it when it doesn't need to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a typical IT dilemma. Often you will have a code in the background representing something, e.g. the name of an assignment group on a helpdesk, so that you can change the display text later if you want. But people object if that code in the background looks too much like the text and then the text changes like it has here.

The way you avoid this is by having the code *not* resemble the text, e.g. you'd just number the TOCs arbitrarily, or use arbitrary random letter codes. But we are where we are.

 

[zwk500]

This is a typical IT dilemma. Often you will have a code in the background representing something, e.g. the name of an assignment group on a helpdesk, so that you can change the display text later if you want. But people object if that code in the background looks too much like the text and then the text changes like it has here.

The way you avoid this is by having the code *not* resemble the text, e.g. you'd just number the TOCs arbitrarily, or use arbitrary random letter codes. But we are where we are.

The really silly thing about this is the TOCs already have Arbitrary 2-letter codes in things like TPS - e.g. SWR are HY, Northern are ED, GWR are EF. http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/operators/servicegroups.shtm

 

[pdeaves]

Lumo can't be LM, LO (London Overground), or LU (London Underground), so LD it is.

LD happens to be one of the few cases where the public timetable code is the same as the internal business code. Probably because the other options don't work (as you said), so it may be simpler to make the two match.

 

[zwk500]

LD happens to be one of the few cases where the public timetable code is the same as the internal business code. Probably because the other options don't work (as you said), so it may be simpler to make the two match.

Locomotive Services (LS) are the only other TOC where they match.

 

[Envoy]

Many thanks everyone for your responses.

 

[Townsend Hook]

It has always seemed a little strange to me that nowadays the codes seem to be set in stone, whereas it doesn’t seem that long ago (2005? Wikipedia says 2003 but doesn’t cite a reference, and that sounds too early to me.) that South Central rebranded to Southern and had their code changed from SC to SN; just a simple rebranding and not even a franchise renewal or anything.

 

[zwk500]

It has always seemed a little strange to me that nowadays the codes seem to be set in stone, whereas it doesn’t seem that long ago (2005? Wikipedia says 2003 but doesn’t cite a reference, and that sounds too early to me.) that South Central rebranded to Southern and had their code changed from SC to SN; just a simple rebranding and not even a franchise renewal or anything.

The South Central case seems to be unique in that it's flipped between the two (See http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/operators/franchises1.shtm#sn). However it's never been impossible to change, just not worth the bother. In this situation, confusion with a scottish operator is possible so this may have prompted the change (Scotrail using SR). Or the new Franchisee had a strong desire to change the code (Notably GNER changed from EC to GR in 1997).

 

[Ian Hardy]

Don't forget that changing things like this costs money, and with the DfT and Treasury controlling much of the railway at present, there are far more important things to spend the reducing income on, than changing a code that doesn't really matter. The way the railway seems to work nowadays, you would need to have a committee of 100 people (and half of those would be expensive consultants) to ensure that everyone agrees to the change

 

[zwk500]

Don't forget that changing things like this costs money, and with the DfT and Treasury controlling much of the railway at present, there are far more important things to spend the reducing income on, than changing a code that doesn't really matter. The way the railway seems to work nowadays, you would need to have a committee of 100 people (and half of those would be expensive consultants) to ensure that everyone agrees to the change

No consultants needed for something like this. TOC would ask for the change, NR would tell them the price and then its be up to the TOC to fund it.
However from previous changes it looks like the way the code changes is that its actually replaced by a new entry, rather than updated. So there are accounting and billing repercussions.

 

[louis97]

Locomotive Services (LS) are the only other TOC where they match.

Not the only other, EM is the business code and timetable code for East Midlands Railway.