Exactly. When I'm at Euston I know that my train's headcode is 1Hxy, where x>=6, and there's no duplication there. Open Train Times gives me the platform, and there's confirmation on the side of the train, so I'm good to go. I sometimes get on the train prior to it being announced, too.
Look how many 2K18s there are, for example:
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
I think you underestimate the average passenger. I am certain that everyone I have talked to in my life who is capable of checking a code consisting of 3 numbers and a letter is also capable of checking a code consisting of 2 letters and 4 numbers.
Considering most boards are now banks of LEDs or even just screens that display images I'm pretty certain you could effect the change without needing any new boards.
Exactly so, and that's one of "mine" as per my earlier post - Euston to Wilmslow via Crewe. The Manchester trains via Stoke are 1Hxy where x<=5, or perhaps x<5, whereas via Crewe they're 1Hxy where x>=6 as here.
As an extremely in-frequent flyer I don't specifically recall the last time that I was at an airport. I wasn't aware that most journeys by air involved all of the gubbins of multiple intermediate calls, vehicle letters and so forth.
You're welcome! And oh yes I had to restrain myself from including a piece on the formation displays (and also not treating platforming as a state secret
).The example was of the train identifiers in practical use - the fact that most European operators use row-by-row displays rather than the British column-by-column style is incidental to that. I would question, however, how many people actually turn up to the station and find their train by looking for their desired station in the list of stops for every single train without having any other piece of information about the service.
The big-picture answer this problem is that you eliminate it wherever possible. Irregular stopping patterns complicate the service and make it harder for infrequent users to understand.
On the contrary, displaying the identifier and other pertinent information onboard is a form of ongoing confirmation for the passenger, and doing it with graphical displays such as the example I use means there's also an ability to provide updates to service information in written form rather than just by PA.
Honestly I think this is an extraordinary leap of presumption. It's the display of a single extra piece of information that consistently identifies one particular train, for the benefit of the passenger, and nothing has to disappear to make it possible. A train won't stop being the "11.05 from King's Cross" if you start identifying it as "GR1033", but it will still be "GR1033" at every single station down the line when "11.05 from King's Cross" is of no use without working backwards up a timetable.
There are benefits to it but I think people are too fixated on 1 benefit of helping the minority and not focussing enough on the negative side which it will have to many passengers who get extra information in amongst already too long and complicated announcements. Adding more will just lead to a constant groan from the PA system and people will listen to none of it or it will listen to too much of it and get confused.
Different headcodes around the country and same headcode with 1 TOC but going a completely different way mean absolutely nothing and do nothing to help your care in my opinion since headcodes in the public domain would primerilly be for use on the day and at the station (IE advance fares and seat allocations). The Piccadilly to Stoke train however, that's an interesting one and something which could/should be looked at and perhaps something could be done there to reduce the duplication.Look how many 2K18s there are, for example:
(Link to an RTT page showing that no less than 14 trains depart on a weekday with headcode 2K18, including some from the same station to different destinations)Realtime Trains | Headcode Search
Realtime Trains is an independent source of live realtime running information for the Great British railway network.
This is just a random headcode I selected because I know it proves my point; there are many others around the country with the same problem, I'm sure.
May well be easy enough to do but combined with all the other rubbish which is now spouted out at train stations, you will confuse people.
You would need new boards or huge tv screens. Compare the photos which are above to Euston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly. You can not replicate that on boards how they are now. Greater Anglias tv screens will be much easier and I do not dispute that but there are still hundreds of stations working off separate LED boards in the column format and even more stations with LED displays on the platforms which don't have room for more information.
That is something which I could be more onboard with. Mix of the operator and headcode. Better than just headcode (as it shows the operator as well, uses headcodes which are already recognised across the industry and is a proper format which people can get onboard with. Operator code, headcode. Not random numbers and letters thrown together). I think that is one area which you have won me over on. If it had to be done, it should be that style.@Llanigraham Don't know if you were aware, but Avanti Pendolinos show the headcode on the external door displays as shown in the following image.
Most people who aren't enthusiasts! People look for a train going to their station and don't really care about the destination that much. I know many people who are not confident using the trains because the front of the train says differently to where they want to go and all the announcements and boards show that much information that it overwhelms them. They are able bodied people as well with no other issues however there are many whom get overwhelmed with too much information and so what do you want them to do? Not travel because a few enthusiasts decided a random selection of numbers and letters should define a train instead of actual station names/stopping patterns.
Why not get rid of some of the other cr*p then? Do we really need announcements about see-it-say-it, unattended luggage, inclement weather, no smoking, number of carriages, incessant exhaustive listings of every little onboard facility, location of the left-luggage office etc. etc.?
You have done nothing to explain to me why a headcode is any better in this respect than an RSID (which, in the vast majority of cases, should be unique).
No you wouldn't. Simply tag it onto the TOC name. So replace "Operated by Northen", "(Northern)" or "A Northern service" with "Northern service NTxxxx". Barely takes up any more room at all.
Indeed. In my opinion, the vast majority of the arguments against implementing this kind of thing are already disproven by the fact that it works absolutely fine in Germany and other continental European countries anyway. I can't stand it when rail enthusiasts treat passengers as ignorant sheep who can't cope with anything more than being drip-fed information in tiny quantities, and will boggle at so much as a 6-character code on a departure board...
As Dr Hoo said, it has to be duplicated due to equality for those with sight problems.
I agree with you but I can't see that happening either as there is no will in the industry to reduce announcements, only increase them.
RSID is just more random compared to a headcode like Bletchleyite showed. People want an easy way to know if that is their train or not, not a countdown conundrum which no one actually knows any details of until they google it. Any code which has to be put out to the public should really try and follow a pattern. The one above which I was swayed to was operator code (Operator is already shown out there so using the operator code shouldn't be much of an issue and it may help people to check the operator they are travelling with (Operator specific fares for example you can say 'only use trains with a VT' code). You then have a number, letter and 2 more numbers. Since many trains with first 2 characters are going the same way, some passengers may become familiar with these 2 codes and in times of disruption may naturally navigate towards these trains. For example, people on the WCML may get to know that 1S or 9S trains are heading to Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and so may gravitate naturally towards these trains for the intermediate stations. Alternatively, staff on the ground may know stopping patterns for trains with certain headcodes and again in times of disruption, it's much easier to tell people to board 'A 9S service' rather than being forced to go online to search for what the RSID is for each service (Codes are confusing and of course I trust staff on the ground wouldn't advise codes to those who would be confused by them but it will help staff remember and provide information quicker than a random code).
For it to be done in the same way which is being shown as per international, new screens would be needed. If done as you suggested, it wouldn't need more space, I agree.
While it may work in Germany, doesn't mean it will work everywhere.
www.railforums.co.uk
If a code can be given where it is a set format and helps passengers, that settles with me but many of the RSID codes are random and you could ask the majority of station staff what the number is and generally no one would know it without finding the driver/guard onboard or googling. Headcode (or a route code) is much easier for staff to remember and thus provide assistance easier. 'Board any VT1H' service is much better than 'board VT5473 or VT4382 or VT3918', passengers can't remember it as easily and it would take staff longer to real off these codes over a standard headcode or route code. Staff also see headcodes on the station signalling diagrams or on Open Train Times so it's much easier to find a headcode than an RSID and as it follows a better pattern, you can tell people to ignore some of the characters and focus on a certain section of the code and people can get where they are going compared to a variety of random numbers which make no logical sense.
To be fair, I do think that we need to update the TOC codes when the operator changes for it to be simpler. I suppose that is a different topic though.
Do you think there is a case for Network Rail to be more pro-active here in making these sorts of useful facilities available for the TOCs to use, i.e. to facilitate NR systems being "gospel"? E.g. they could propose schema changes in the schedule data to allow more passenger-facing information to be expressed, such as whether a train will have wifi or air conditioning, or not have toilets.
