RealTimeTrains website

[_toommm_]

Noticed today that ‘Service passed another here’ has been replaced with ‘Service stops for pathing (passing train)’, such as this train, 5Z66, from Edinburgh to Edinburgh via the Suburban Line:

Realtime Trains | 5Z66 1315 Edinburgh to Edinburgh | 26/06/2022

Real-time train running information for 5Z66 1315 departure from Edinburgh to Edinburgh on 26/06/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Class 466]

Noticed today that ‘Service passed another here’ has been replaced with ‘Service stops for pathing (passing train)’, such as this train, 5Z66, from Edinburgh to Edinburgh via the Suburban Line:

Realtime Trains | 5Z66 1315 Edinburgh to Edinburgh | 26/06/2022

Real-time train running information for 5Z66 1315 departure from Edinburgh to Edinburgh on 26/06/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The former made more sense IMO

 

[Watershed]

Noticed today that ‘Service passed another here’ has been replaced with ‘Service stops for pathing (passing train)’, such as this train, 5Z66, from Edinburgh to Edinburgh via the Suburban Line:

Realtime Trains | 5Z66 1315 Edinburgh to Edinburgh | 26/06/2022

Real-time train running information for 5Z66 1315 departure from Edinburgh to Edinburgh on 26/06/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Oh dear. This adds even more confusion, as "A" stops aren't always to pass another train.

The simplest explanation would be "service stops for pathing reasons". You can't determine the reason for the stop in any automated fashion (you'd have to look at the graph).

If you wanted to add any more detail you'd have to enumerate the main reasons, e.g. "service stops for pathing reasons (to pass/be passed by another train or await its onward path)". Obviously that's too long.

 

[swt_passenger]

The former made more sense IMO

It often didn’t make sense though, the code was being applied more often to the train being passed, rather than the one doing the passing, as was discussed in this thread a couple of weeks or maybe months ago…

 

[spark001uk]

The simplest explanation would be "service stops for pathing reasons"

I'd tend to agree with this one. It's basic, and hence not confusing in any way.

 

[Andy Pacer]

I'd tend to agree with this one. It's basic, and hence not confusing in any way.

Agreed, being too specific then opens itself to criticism when reality is slightly different.

 

[Tom]

I think you're putting too much onus on RTT to correct railway errors here. RTT is effectively a window onto the railway and how it thinks it is running.

We had some discussions internally about A/X activities and changed it mostly for grammatical reasons - and it changed about a week ago.

The A activity is "Stops or shunts for other trains to pass" - whether it is passing or being passed by another train is neither here nor there in my eyes. It's still a passing train. The X activity is "Passes another train at crossing point on single line" - near enough the same thing really. Just because it is being used in other cases isn't really my problem to fix.

 

[Watershed]

I think you're putting too much onus on RTT to correct railway errors here. RTT is effectively a window onto the railway and how it thinks it is running.

We had some discussions internally about A/X activities and changed it mostly for grammatical reasons - and it changed about a week ago.

The A activity is "Stops or shunts for other trains to pass" - whether it is passing or being passed by another train is neither here nor there in my eyes. It's still a passing train. The X activity is "Passes another train at crossing point on single line" - near enough the same thing really. Just because it is being used in other cases isn't really my problem to fix.

The new wording doesn't make a great deal more sense gramatically though. The bit in brackets should be "(passing a train)" or "(to pass another train)" if anything.

I get that you've got to work with the imperfect industry data as it stands. But people who are intimately involved in the timetable process are telling you that the "translation" you've adopted doesn't reflect the way that the A activity is actually used. I don't understand why you are reluctant to go by that, and are insisting on using the technical (but not entirely helpful to members of the public) TPR definition.

 

[Tom]

Three things to consider. There is a character limit on what can go in that section. I have had, other than in this place, as far as I can tell two or three comments about the terminology (which were about tense). In the current front end code, A/X are deliberately grouped given that they are fairly similar in purpose (i.e. the action of passing another service). So, on that basis and with the constraints, I am inclined to believe that in general there is an understanding of what the intention is.

I am not really sure what the hang up is about this - the definition is fairly reasonable as it still involves passing a train (whether it is the one stopping to be passed or vice versa I think does not matter much) whether one readily exists or not. For those who are wanting to use RTT in a more planning/operational way, there are facilities to see the raw codes underneath via the commercial platform.

 

[Western Sunset]

Ye olde WTTs phrased it like this:

X - Indicates points (a) at which the train is booked to run from one running line to another, (b) at which trains are booked to cross each other on a single line at a crossing place.

Like Tom above, I'm not hung up about semantics. RealTime Trains is a top-notch resource that I find most useful. Long may it continue.

 

[D6700]

Simply describing an "A" stop as "Pathing Stop" would be very short and accurate. As Watershed has explained, the stop isn't necessarily to let a train pass - it is often because there isn't an available path further down the line.

 

[Tom]

I now understand a bit better about where you are coming from. However: I would have to stick with the rules as they are stated in the documentation that is made available as otherwise it would just be contradictory to other systems that stick with the word of the documentation.

If the purpose of something has changed, then it should be updated in the TPRs, CIF documentation, BPLAN, etc, as otherwise it would be one system changing something on the word of those from an internet forum rather than from the official source. The railway is very good at changing meanings without changing the docs that everyone has to rely on. If there is evidence that I have missed to suggest as such from official sources then can I suggest it is sent to the feedback@ address so that they can look into it on there.

 

[BRX]

Well, I'm happy that it's changed so it's not in the past tense, which is what felt wrong about the old version, regardless of any arguments about technicalities.

 

[Roger B]

I took a trip to Scotland earlier this week - including a visit to the SRPS at Bo'ness - hugely enjoyable. I see that many of the TPE trains to Scotland are still marked 'Reservations compulsory'. However this is not now the case, with on train announcements pointing passengers to a carriage that has no reservations. I daresay that this is another instance of RTT displaying the information provided from its feeds, buf if that's the case, I think it's pretty poor that TPE (and possible other TOCs) aren't actively maintaining this data. Doesn't their oontract with DfT require them to do so?

 

[Watershed]

I took a trip to Scotland earlier this week - including a visit to the SRPS at Bo'ness - hugely enjoyable. I see that many of the TPE trains to Scotland are still marked 'Reservations compulsory'. However this is not now the case, with on train announcements pointing passengers to a carriage that has no reservations. I daresay that this is another instance of RTT displaying the information provided from its feeds, buf if that's the case, I think it's pretty poor that TPE (and possible other TOCs) aren't actively maintaining this data. Doesn't their oontract with DfT require them to do so?

"Aren't actively maintaining" is too charitable, I'm afraid. As I've said elsewhere, it's not a change that happens by accident.

 

[Sheridan]

Well, I'm happy that it's changed so it's not in the past tense, which is what felt wrong about the old version, regardless of any arguments about technicalities.

I’m with you on this, the only thing that grated on me was that it was ‘passed’ rather than ‘passes’, when all the other activity descriptions are in the present tense. Just changing the one letter would have done for me!

 

[warwickshire]

Will any other Train Operating Companies or Freight Operating Companies be joining Realtime trains in the future at all?

 

[Class 466]

Will any other Train Operating Companies or Freight Operating Companies be joining Realtime trains in the future at all?

I wish my local operators would, but I know that one of them probably never will!

 

[Class360/1]

I wish my local operators would, but I know that one of them probably never will!

Same! I’m waiting for GA

 

[JakeMurphy]

Same!

I’m waiting for West Midlands trains!

 

[Roger B]

A question of much greater significance than when / whether this or that TOC shares their allocations / know your train data with RTT, is whether GBR are going to do so. And to date the only rumblings I've heard haven't been that encouraging.
Hopefully someone's heard more encouraging news?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

A question of much greater significance than when / whether this or that TOC shares their allocations / know your train data with RTT, is whether GBR are going to do so. And to date the only rumblings I've heard haven't been that encouraging.
Hopefully someone's heard more encouraging news?

And what rumblings might those be?
Still hoping for Greater Anglia to make an appearance to help with the 720/1s when they arrive

Same! I’m waiting for GA

As am I, desperately I’ve been on 67 of the 720s now, and so even when they’re all in use I’ll be encountering plenty of duds!

 

[DanNCL]

Are there any plans to show the livery for 43184 on RTT? Currently it still shows in XC livery

 

[AlexNL]

Wasn't 43184 outshopped just this week? Someone will have to make the appropriate graphics for it first, before those can be linked to the loco on RTT.

 

[Steddenm]

How come Nethertown is a popular departure board?

 

[Chiltern006]

they do that a lot. every day it’s a new station, always a dead one with nothing going on

 

[swt_passenger]

they do that a lot. every day it’s a new station, always a dead one with nothing going on

It also changes each time you refresh the site.

 

[Peter0124]

And how come Glasgow Queen Street is there rather than Glasgow Central?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

How come Nethertown is a popular departure board?

I think it’s a joke

 

[D6130]

I've noticed on RTT over the past couple of days a glitsch in the Northern unit allocations. The unit numbers have been correct, but many of the unit formation graphics have got into the wrong order. e.g. a picture of a class 333 unit with two driving motor cares nose-to-tail at one end of the unit!