False destinations on trains from Reading heading towards Paddington

[Esker-pades]

As noted "Circle Line via Victoria" or whatever is the proper way to do services like this. Or in the Scottish example, "Fife Circle via Glenrothes w/T" or somesuch.

Technically, the Fife Circle services are two different trains. They switch headcodes at Glenrothes with Thornton. At the outer stations (like Lochgelly), they do have a thing on the departure boards which says "continues to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy" for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Technically, the Fife Circle services are two different trains. They switch headcodes at Glenrothes with Thornton. At the outer stations (like Lochgelly), they do have a thing on the departure boards which says "continues to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy" for example.

I'd concede to false destinations generally if that subtext was always put in the "subtext" (via) line.

 

[Bikeman78]

Technically, the Fife Circle services are two different trains. They switch headcodes at Glenrothes with Thornton. At the outer stations (like Lochgelly), they do have a thing on the departure boards which says "continues to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy" for example.

I wonder how the new Edinburgh to Glasgow via Cumbernauld trains will be displayed next week?

 

[Aictos]

I wonder how the new Edinburgh to Glasgow via Cumbernauld trains will be displayed next week?

I can't see a issue because they will simply be displayed as Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street via Cumbernauld and vice versa like they do at the moment with with Glasgow Central via Shotts, Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High and Milngavie via Glasgow Queen Street Low Level so I can't see why there will be a issue.

Indeed if you look at the CIS link here, you can quite clearly see how these services are advertised so very very doubtful of any issues.

As to Reading, maybe just maybe the reason why the stopping service is advertised as Ealing Broadway regardless of it actually continuing to London Paddington is because Great Western Railway want to encourage London Paddington passengers to use the non stop services and instead ensure there are seats on the stopping services for stations along the route instead of having London Paddington only passengers use them.

As you can see here, so I can't see what the big deal is!

 

[jimm]

I hope you can admit you were wrong about this by the way. I don't know why people find the words "I was wrong" so hard to say or write.

Sorry, my mistake, but I missed post 71 after getting bogged down in your continued questioning of mine and cactustwirly's attempts to explain over and over the point I had made in the first place in post 57 about how the marketing people had arrived at their bit of spin.

You certainly don't seem to have any intention of accepting the logic of the destination system that has worked perfectly well for a number of years now and largely achieved its key objective of keeping foreign visitors off the semi-fasts between London and GWR's two key Oxfordshire stations, so that those passengers get the fastest possible journey - plus, as Class 403 notes above, keep the seats on the semi-fasts available for the people who want to travel to and from the intermediate stations.

Serving those places is the bread-and-butter job of the semi-fasts, not carrying tourists who want to get to Oxford or back to London quickly.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

it'll be obvious that you're going on Crossrail as you have to go to specific platforms for it

That will be the case at Paddington, but not Reading.

Has it been established yet whether Crossrail trains will be shown on the main Paddington destination boards? For westbound local services, won't there continue to be some services operated by GWR? For many stations towards Reading, it will increase the frequency but worsen journey times unless there are some semi-fast or limited stop services in the mix.

 

[Bikeman78]

I can't see a issue because they will simply be displayed as Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street via Cumbernauld and vice versa like they do at the moment with with Glasgow Central via Shotts, Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High and Milngavie via Glasgow Queen Street Low Level so I can't see why there will be a issue.

Indeed if you look at the CIS link here, you can quite clearly see how these services are advertised so very very doubtful of any issues.

As to Reading, maybe just maybe the reason why the stopping service is advertised as Ealing Broadway regardless of it actually continuing to London Paddington is because Great Western Railway want to encourage London Paddington passengers to use the non stop services and instead ensure there are seats on the stopping services for stations along the route instead of having London Paddington only passengers use them.

As you can see here, so I can't see what the big deal is!

I wasn't predicting any issues, merely curious. As to Reading, I think most people would cope if the trains were advertised to Paddington as they would be capable of working out that a train that stops nine times en route takes longer than a non stop one! If they can't then they have no chance of knowing which of the routes from Edinburgh to Glasgow is fastest.

 

[coppercapped]

Draft deleted.

 

[Aictos]

You certainly don't seem to have any intention of accepting the logic of the destination system that has worked perfectly well for a number of years now and largely achieved its key objective of keeping foreign visitors off the semi-fasts between London and GWR's two key Oxfordshire stations, so that those passengers get the fastest possible journey - plus, as Class 403 notes above, keep the seats on the semi-fasts available for the people who want to travel to and from the intermediate stations.

Exactly, there simply isn't a issue at all here as I have noted above in my post.

Serving those places is the bread-and-butter job of the semi-fasts, not carrying tourists who want to get to Oxford or back to London quickly.

As it should be or carrying commuters who need to get to London and back quickly, for these wanting to travel to or from immediate stations then they have the semi-fast services.

That will be the case at Paddington, but not Reading.

Has it been established yet whether Crossrail trains will be shown on the main Paddington destination boards? For westbound local services, won't there continue to be some services operated by GWR? For many stations towards Reading, it will increase the frequency but worsen journey times unless there are some semi-fast or limited stop services in the mix.

Well as TfL Rail is the temporary name of Crossrail and seeing as these trains running from London Paddington are shown as being operated by TfL Rail then I would have thought that these services would just be shown as operated by Crossrail on the main London Paddington destination boards like they currently show services operated by Great Western Railway and Heathrow Express to name just two.

And as shown here, you can quite clearly see that which services are operated by TfL Rail which will be advertised as being operated by Crossrail when Core of the route is opened.

I wasn't predicting any issues, merely curious. As to Reading, I think most people would cope if the trains were advertised to Paddington as they would be capable of working out that a train that stops nine times en route takes longer than a non stop one! If they can't then they have no chance of knowing which of the routes from Edinburgh to Glasgow is fastest.

I'm sorry but if they can't realise that a train stopping at 9 stations is not going to be faster then a non stop train as advertised on the boards then there's something wrong and it's not the fault of the railway but lack of common sense.

I don't think there's a issue at Reading at all as I pointed out above, the vast majority of London Paddington passengers will get the non stop services leaving seats free for these wanting immediate stations on the all stations services.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Sorry, my mistake, but I missed post 71 after getting bogged down in your continued questioning of mine and cactustwirly's attempts to explain over and over the point I had made in the first place in post 57 about how the marketing people had arrived at their bit of spin.

You certainly don't seem to have any intention of accepting the logic of the destination system that has worked perfectly well for a number of years now and largely achieved its key objective of keeping foreign visitors off the semi-fasts between London and GWR's two key Oxfordshire stations, so that those passengers get the fastest possible journey - plus, as Class 403 notes above, keep the seats on the semi-fasts available for the people who want to travel to and from the intermediate stations.

Serving those places is the bread-and-butter job of the semi-fasts, not carrying tourists who want to get to Oxford or back to London quickly.

Thank you for your apology. I think you are wrong though: I certainly do understand and even accept the logic of why false destinations are used. After all, it's not exactly complicated is it?

My position is simply that either the same goal might be achieved by other means, as is the case in most foreign countries (train numbers or classifications), or perhaps that the lingering dishonesty and potential confusion of false destinations can be eliminated with a simple explanatory poster or modification to the robot announcements on non-express trains. Sure this may have downsides such as information overload, but I think that is debatable, and a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. (And in any case the main information overload on these non-express trains is the headache-inducing list of stations at which carriage 8 doors won't open, played on loop even in the other 7 carriages for literally no point. I don't understand why the announcement can't be made in only the affected carriages, as happens on the Tube)

You are going to have to accept something that may be hard for you to accept. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't entirely agree.