Summer 2016 timetables

[D6975]

I accept your frustration, but for many others, myself included, the separate PDFs are much handier as you can tab between the tables far easier than if they were in a single file.

Be thankful we still have an NRT - from that article it's clear NR aren't too keen on it.

Me too.
When it was only available as a single pdf I used to spend quite a while extracting individual timetables to make it easier to use.

Just had a quick look at tables 82 and 100 and spotted an error immediately 11:56 SO Carlisle - Lancaster arrives at 15:51 in 100 and 16:08 in 82.

 

[dk1]

Abellio GA have re-introduced the additional 4 MFO return services on the Great Yarmouth route from 22nd July. To be honest, they could do with running throughout the Summer timetable & recent trains on this route on these days have been very crowded. Not ideal but the standby buses are there & being used.

 

[Darren R]

The last issue they discontinued the PDF timetable, only leaving the 250-odd separate PDFs. I wrote to them saying how this was inconvenient to many, given that it's no real work to produce a single overall PDF document, only to receive a most patronising reply back from the staff there that as THEY had decided it wasn't necessary, they couldn't see what grounds anyone had to complain.

I see they haven't reinstated it. Presumably abandoned for good.

The single pdf version of the eNRT couldn't have been discontinued last time round, because I downloaded it from the Network Rail website at some point and have a copy of it on my computer!

 

[berneyarms]

The single pdf version of the eNRT couldn't have been discontinued last time round, because I downloaded it from the Network Rail website at some point and have a copy of it on my computer!

The current timetable issued in December has only been available in the individual PDFs rather than a single file. That's what the poster is referring to.

Are you thinking of last summer?

 

[Seaeagle]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3828.aspx

Downloaded this and on a quick browse found table 128 only showing as 1 page rather than the 40 pages plus that it should be!

 

[Class 170101]

Abellio GA have re-introduced the additional 4 MFO return services on the Great Yarmouth route from 22nd July. To be honest, they could do with running throughout the Summer timetable & recent trains on this route on these days have been very crowded. Not ideal but the standby buses are there & being used.

But how many times will they operate given that you guys keep driving into tractors

 

[dk1]

But how many times will they operate given that you guys keep driving into tractors

All we need is a couple of DBSOs & hey presto, another short set

 

[87015]

All we need is a couple of DBSOs & hey presto, another short set

Depends if they'd actually let DRS onto Clown Point to maintain any of it properly, rather than only giving them a couple of hours a week :roll:

 

[Class 170101]

I didn't think the short set was being maintained at Crown Point though? Didn't it go away to Crewe the last time it required a major exam?

 

[Taunton]

The current timetable issued in December has only been available in the individual PDFs rather than a single file. That's what the poster is referring to.

Are you thinking of last summer?

I seem to recall that previously both types were available, the large PDF and the whole set of individual ones. Someone had sensibly identified that different users have different uses. Unfortunately someone else came along and decided that the large PDF was, for them, not required, so they stopped it.

It's well known that Network Rail have Got The Zits over being asked by the Regulator to prepare the national timetable (it was another one of the 1,001 things that Tom Winsor, well before he was the Regulator himself, in his "expert" advice to the government, forgot about in breaking up the industry into small bits all connected by lawyers). It's about time the Regulator spoke AGAIN telling NR to do the job properly. "A National" timetable (the stipulation) means what it says. Not 300 pieces. Now if we want to do that in addition, fair enough.

 

[dk1]

I didn't think the short set was being maintained at Crown Point though? Didn't it go away to Crewe the last time it required a major exam?

Would be an expensive old job it it went to Crewe each time. It has a weekly slot on a Sunday which is the only day you will never see it in traffic.

 

[30907]

"A National" timetable (the stipulation) means what it says. Not 300 pieces. Now if we want to do that in addition, fair enough.

The German, Czech, Slovak, Swiss and Austrian national timetables are all done by individual PDF, or were when last I looked.

 

[berneyarms]

I seem to recall that previously both types were available, the large PDF and the whole set of individual ones. Someone had sensibly identified that different users have different uses. Unfortunately someone else came along and decided that the large PDF was, for them, not required, so they stopped it.

It's well known that Network Rail have Got The Zits over being asked by the Regulator to prepare the national timetable (it was another one of the 1,001 things that Tom Winsor, well before he was the Regulator himself, in his "expert" advice to the government, forgot about in breaking up the industry into small bits all connected by lawyers). It's about time the Regulator spoke AGAIN telling NR to do the job properly. "A National" timetable (the stipulation) means what it says. Not 300 pieces. Now if we want to do that in addition, fair enough.

I really wouldn't go on about the lack of a national timetable - there is a national rail timetable, it's just not in the particular format you want it in. You're just going to be seen as a crank dealing in semantics frankly if you persist with that line of argument.

I would focus rather on the lack of the file format that you want, and explain why you value that format, and the benefits it offers over the individual files. Personally I fundamentally disagree with your view that a single file is better, as I find it far easier to switch from one table to another when using separate files, but horses for courses.

Similar to the post above, you can also add the Irish Rail and NIR timetables as being in individual route PDF files as well with no single file covering all services.

 

[FenMan]

Anyone hoping to look at Table 126 will be disappointed. Opening the file reveals Table 226!

 

[Class 170101]

Would be an expensive old job it it went to Crewe each time. It has a weekly slot on a Sunday which is the only day you will never see it in traffic.

But it still goes to Crewe IIRC on occasion - didn't it go there for a visit last month just before its trip to Ely and Liverpool Street?

 

[Darren R]

The current timetable issued in December has only been available in the individual PDFs rather than a single file. That's what the poster is referring to.

Are you thinking of last summer?

No - I'm looking at it now: Sunday 13 December 2015 to Saturday 14 May 2016. I downloaded it from the Network Rail website on 22/04/16 at 2103. (And, quite frankly, it's even more of a mess than the individual pdf format, with several timetables included twice in their entirety, and maps that haven't been updated for years arranged in a fairly random order at the end after the timetable section.)

 

[dk1]

But it still goes to Crewe IIRC on occasion - didn't it go there for a visit last month just before its trip to Ely and Liverpool Street?

It is very occasionally & it failed the very day it arrived back too. Still, far more reliable than the 47s so shouldn't mock.

 

[TheEdge]

But it still goes to Crewe IIRC on occasion - didn't it go there for a visit last month just before its trip to Ely and Liverpool Street?

No, it went to Dereham to have its Mk2s fettled with as the blokes on the MNR have a decent pool of Mk2 expertise.

 

[Deepgreen]

With only a few days to go until the summer timetable starts, the WTT is still not available on the NR website. Does anyone know when this might appear, or has NR ceased publishing this on its site?

 

[jfollows]

With only a few days to go until the summer timetable starts, the WTT is still not available on the NR website. Does anyone know when this might appear, or has NR ceased publishing this on its site?

I'm sure you guessed it - no sooner do you post than they appear, the working timetables are now available at
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\Timetables\Working timetable (WTT)&root= or by following the link from the eNRT page.

 

[MikeWM]

Anyone hoping to look at Table 126 will be disappointed. Opening the file reveals Table 226!

Table 126A is fun too. Possibly the first table in the history of the NRT to list precisely zero services?

As mentioned above, 128 is also AWOL bar the first page.

Has anyone complained about this? Errors in the tables are one thing, but the tables being completely wrong is another matter.

Seems they really are trying the old 'make it as useless as possible so everyone stops using it, then claim no-one uses it so they can stop making it altogether' tactic.

 

[jimm]

Table 126A is fun too. Possibly the first table in the history of the NRT to list precisely zero services?

As mentioned above, 128 is also AWOL bar the first page.

Has anyone complained about this? Errors in the tables are one thing, but the tables being completely wrong is another matter.

Seems they really are trying the old 'make it as useless as possible so everyone stops using it, then claim no-one uses it so they can stop making it altogether' tactic.

The situation with Table 126A is down to Oxfordshire County Council's somewhat shambolic withdrawal of remaining subsidies for bus services.

This was originally due to happen at the start of the new financial year, but someone then seems to have realised that, in a fair few places, schoolchildren were dependent on buses that were about to be axed. As a result, the council then found enough money from reserves to keep the subsidised services going until the end of the school year in July.

The timetable compilers probably had other things to do than keep on top of this situation, so I wouldn't blame them for leaving it blank for the moment.

A new-look 126A may materialise later in the year, if Pulhams, which runs the buses from Kingham station, finds a way to provide some sort of continued X8 link to Chipping Norton in conjunction with the 802 from Bourton-on-the-Water and Stow-on-the Wold to Kingham.

 

[MikeWM]

The situation with Table 126A is down to Oxfordshire County Council's somewhat shambolic withdrawal of remaining subsidies for bus services.

This was originally due to happen at the start of the new financial year, but someone then seems to have realised that, in a fair few places, schoolchildren were dependent on buses that were about to be axed. As a result, the council then found enough money from reserves to keep the subsidised services going until the end of the school year in July.

The timetable compilers probably had other things to do than keep on top of this situation, so I wouldn't blame them for leaving it blank for the moment.

A new-look 126A may materialise later in the year, if Pulhams, which runs the buses from Kingham station, finds a way to provide some sort of continued X8 link to Chipping Norton in conjunction with the 802 from Bourton-on-the-Water and Stow-on-the Wold to Kingham.

Thanks - a sensible explanation. Still looks a bit silly though without any note to that effect in the actual timetable

 

[jfollows]

Has anyone complained about this? Errors in the tables are one thing, but the tables being completely wrong is another matter.

Yes.
Absolutely no response whatsoever.

 

[infobleep]

I've noticed minor timetable changes on the Cobham line. Is this due to reliability of trains times into stations up to and including Surbiton?

The 6.06; 6.36; 7.16 and 8.36 from Guildford now leave at 6.04; 6.34 and 7.14 and 8.34.

The 7.36 now departs at 7.35. However the 7.06 still departs at 7.06 and the 8.07 still departs 8.07. Once a upon a time all the trains departed at 7, 17 or 37 minutes past the hour, as they do from the 9.07 onwards. They changed the times to 6, 16 and 36 due to reliability of the times. Perhaps that still wasn't enough.

The times trains depart from Surbiton remain unchanged. It's only the stations before. This gives the trains an extra 0-2 minutes to get to Surbiton, depending on which train it is. Wonder if they will arrive into Surbiton on time more often. What I use to find happen is they would depart from Hinchley Wood on time but late into Surbiton, due to the train in front from Woking being late.

As the Woking trains are not being retimed, I'm not sure what the advantage is but there must be one or they wouldn't do it.

One exception was the 7.16, which tended to be the most reliable into Surbiton as they give it an extra 2 minutes to arrive, arriving 7.53 and the previous train left 12 minutes before it arrived. Mostly the previous trains would leave just 3 minutes before the trains arrival. Therefore not sure why it needed to be retimed but there must have been a reason or it wouldn't have been done.

It can't have been to keep everything constant because there are now three trains departing at other times instead of 04. Previously it was just one train departing at a different time and once a upon a time, none.

When it comes to the leaf fall timetable, will they add another three minutes on like before or would they then start clashing with arriving trains? The 8.07 use to do that during leaf timetable but I don't think it was so bad last autumn. It would only clash due to an arrival train being late though. However they clearly see it as an issue the rest of the year as it's time has never changed.

I am fascinated by things like this. Perhaps I should have become a railway timetable planner!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[berneyarms]

Table 126A is fun too. Possibly the first table in the history of the NRT to list precisely zero services?

As mentioned above, 128 is also AWOL bar the first page.

Has anyone complained about this? Errors in the tables are one thing, but the tables being completely wrong is another matter.

Seems they really are trying the old 'make it as useless as possible so everyone stops using it, then claim no-one uses it so they can stop making it altogether' tactic.

Read Barry Doe's column in RAIL 799 for a full explanation of what's going on.

 

[jfollows]

The 6.06; 6.36; 7.16 and 8.36 from Guildford now leave at 6.04; 6.34 and 7.14 and 8.34.

The 7.36 now departs at 7.35. However the 7.06 still departs at 7.06 and the 8.07 still departs 8.07. Once a upon a time all the trains departed at 7, 17 or 37 minutes past the hour, as they do from the 9.07 onwards. They changed the times to 6, 16 and 36 due to reliability of the times. Perhaps that still wasn't enough.

You should find the WH working timetable interesting, then, pages 334 and 326 of WH01. It shows the additional time added to the schedules of the trains you mention.

 

[Seaeagle]

Yes.
Absolutely no response whatsoever.

Likewise, I've sent NR an email and not heard a thing.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

A new-look 126A may materialise later in the year, if Pulhams, which runs the buses from Kingham station, finds a way to provide some sort of continued X8 link to Chipping Norton in conjunction with the 802 from Bourton-on-the-Water and Stow-on-the Wold to Kingham.

Confirmed today that it's continuing: twelve services each way, Mon-Fri.

 

[kieron]

No - I'm looking at it now: Sunday 13 December 2015 to Saturday 14 May 2016. I downloaded it from the Network Rail website on 22/04/16 at 2103.

You must have been lucky. It wasn't there when I looked for it, and it wasn't there when archive.org looked, either.

(And, quite frankly, it's even more of a mess than the individual pdf format, with several timetables included twice in their entirety, and maps that haven't been updated for years arranged in a fairly random order at the end after the timetable section.)

I can believe that. I had particularly hoped for a single file version at the time because the index file was messed up. With the single file, I could use the PDF program's search function to find which tables a location was in. There are ways around it, of course, not least sticking the files together myself.

They still haven't got the Bicester-Oxford line right in it, but maybe they're waiting for the last bit to be reopened first.