Would RER-style Mission Codes have helped Thameslink passengers?

[Bletchleyite]

How do these "regulars" get home today without use of these elaborate codes? Is there some sort of hostel in Bedford that mops up all the lost city workers who got on the wrong train home, never to be seen again?

It's information for information's sake, and adds nothing.

It adds the ability for a regular to see, at a glance, if it's their train or not.

Yes, of course they can read the displays, but it just makes things that bit easier for them. If you don't know what it is, ignore it.

Less is more, in my view.

Do you also oppose bus route numbers? A long run of via points would be preferable to the occasional user.

Meanwhile, pretty much all non-UK urban rail systems use route numbering. British exceptionalism again, perchance? It's usually wrong, and this is no exception. Normally if most countries do something one way and we do it another it's that, and we're wrong, not them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I personally truggle to see how advertising "this is the LOPV / ZXRT / SPQR stopping pattern" will help, rather than hinder, this, to the less-informed traveller.

Oh I quite agree, but I think something much more simpleand more conspicuous would help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh I quite agree, but I think something much more simpleand more conspicuous would help.

Though I think this would require considerable simplification of the routes and stopping patterns. Which post COVID might be viable - then you could use German-style S-bahn numbering which is a bit more understandable than those French codes.

The south WCML would be similar - you couldn't do it now, but if you were able to simplify it due to reduced demand you could have something like:

LM1 - all mainline stations to Tring*
LM2 - semifast to Tring, all stations to MKC
LM3 - Leighton Buzzard, MKC, Wolverton, Northampton, all mainline stations to New St
LM4 - Liverpool-Brum with whatever calling pattern it is
LM5 - Brum to Crewe via the wobble
LM6 - WFJ, MKC, Rugby then all Trent Valley stations except Polesworth to Crewe
(or similar)

* WFJ shuttle might still be LM1 because the calling points are the same, just like a bus terminating short doesn't get a different number.

...though you'd need all those to have consistent calling points for that to work.

 

[GordonT]

king it simple itf you prefer. As it is we muddle through....

(Aside: Trivia question for those who like such things: where can you go, get on the platform, and know that the next train is yours? And where are you going to?)

I suppose that the Waterloo & City line leaves little room for doubt.

 

[Ianno87]

Do you also oppose bus route numbers? A long run of via points would be preferable to the occasional user.

Meaningless comparison- buses don't run on a fixed track or (generally) have departure boards at the stop.

Meanwhile, pretty much all non-UK urban rail systems use route numbering. British exceptionalism again, perchance? It's usually wrong, and this is no exception. Normally if most countries do something one way and we do it another it's that, and we're wrong, not them.

There's British Exceptionalism, and then there's blindly taking what another country does and applying it to us without really thinking what it's actually trying to achieve.

I'd say, for starters, other countries don't have the good quality passenger information screens that can be found in the Thameslink core. Or optimised rolling stock like the Class 700s. Perhaps other countries do that "wrong"?

 

[Aictos]

It adds the ability for a regular to see, at a glance, if it's their train or not.

Yes, of course they can read the displays, but it just makes things that bit easier for them. If you don't know what it is, ignore it.



Do you also oppose bus route numbers? A long run of via points would be preferable to the occasional user.

Meanwhile, pretty much all non-UK urban rail systems use route numbering. British exceptionalism again, perchance? It's usually wrong, and this is no exception. Normally if most countries do something one way and we do it another it's that, and we're wrong, not them.

What's so difficult about using the information screens that list the stopping pattern?

If you were travelling City Thameslink to Radlett and the next advertised train didn't show this then obviously you wouldn't get on the train.

If it did display Radlett then obviously you get on it.

Some trains eg the Southern Class 377s/387s do scroll the stopping pattern on the side of the train with information about which part of the train you should be in which I think provides more help then branding services A, B, C etc which is not needed.

As to buses, for years they've always had a timetable poster by the bus stop which you would read to see your current location then go down to see what time you arrive at your destination however most bus companies nowadays have upgraded to providing this via mobile apps or have a screen which shows the next bus due, it's destination and if it is on time or when it's expected.

Both work well for the different types of public transport, introducing a Paris RER route ID serves no benefit and in my view will hinder the average passenger when the current system works fine as it is.

Why reinvent the wheel when you don't have to?

 

[dm1]

An alternative would be to have numbers for standard routes or route/destination combinations and to just announce any significant deviations along with the route number. So for the London Bridge example you could announce "S1" when the train is travelling via London Bridge, and announce " S1 via Blackfriars" and at the preceding station announce "This train will not stop at London Bridge" or similar.

Ideally the aim of route numbers or codes is to avoid the need to list every single calling point on every train. For casual travellers, a long list is quite difficult to follow, for commuters it's a lot of audiovisual clutter.

Instead, a route number or code gives a base that the passenger can look up in advance and only significant variations need to be announced.

For comparison, imagine every bus announced every stop it could stop at along its route at regular intervals. That would drive passengers mad!

 

[Chris Butler]

I never understood these codes when I was in Paris many years ago. I just thought that it spelt a word whose initial letter was the first letter of the destination - e.g. VIGO was bound for Versailes.

As I understand the intended design is that:

1. The first letter is indeed the destination.
2. The second letter is the nature (fast, semi-fast, all stations) of the stopping pattern.
3. The third letter is further info on the stopping pattern - e.g. the station from which the service becomes 'fast'.
4. The fourth letter is the line on which the service runs (e.g. where there are several branches).

Codes shown in italics are not routine services, but services used in cases of disruption.
There are also 'technical' codes - e.g. for 'train out of service'.

Obviously there is redundancy in the codes, e.g. with the first and fourth letters are closely related.

How much of this is understood by Parisians, I have no idea.

 

[Alfie1014]

The 319s carried alphanumeric codes in the second destination display in the 1990s. The system didn't last long. NSE introduced route numbers on new-build stock - eg 321s, 165s, 166s, 465s. Again, the use of these numbers fell away.

Yep they were instigated at the bequest of the then MD ('big-Jim' Collins) I think, though it may have been part of a wider NSE initative that didn't come to nowt in the longer term. I developed them as Resources Manager at the TOC and with only a limited number of characters to display only a 2 digit code it was a bit of a challenge to say the least. It wasn't helped by the seemingly random nature of some (peak) calling patterns in particular, but this was simply because we were so resource driven and much of the time running to keep up with demand that we had to constantly tweek calling patterns to reduce overcrowding or attempt to even out loadings. From memory they were something like this;

Thameslink Alpha-numeric route codes (early 1990s);

Destination (first digit):
B Bedford
G Guildford or West Croydon
H Brighton via RedHill
L Luton
M Moorgate
N St AlbaNs
O Selhurst?
R ORpington
S Sevenoaks
T BrighTon via Quarry
U SUtton
W GatWick Airport or Three Bridges

Calling pattern, mostly north of the river (second digit):

1 All stations (Bedford to Farringdon) and v/v
2
3 All Bedford to St Albans and then via London Bridge and v/v
4
5
6
7 All stations Bedford to St Albans then via Elephant and Castle (though not necessarily calling at E&C!) and v/v
8 Semi-fast (Luton or St Albans then Radlett, Elstree and Mill Hill Broadway) then fast to Kings Cross TL and v/v
9 All stations (Bedford to Farringdon) except Kentish Town and v/v
0 Other please check timetable!
X Express, (Kings Cross TL fast to Luton or Flitwick) and v/v




There was some restance from some colleagues at Train Planning Railtrack (as was) not least as some of the route codes on the headers of the timetable columns could be confused with days of the week, SX, S0, MX, M0, especially in the then GBTT, though as these designations are used mostly by rail staff it was thought that the general public wouldn't be too confused! In the main our own traincrew mostly correctly displayed them, though at times of disruption and on the 'wall of death' they sometimes didn't get correctly changed when changing direction. They were also shown on CIS screens (at least North of the river where we operated the stations) but as this was before the days of automated on-train announcements again it was up to the traincrew to add them to their announcements.

Oh and Big-Jim was known as such due to his stature (well over 6ft!)

 

[Ianno87]

An alternative would be to have numbers for standard routes or route/destination combinations and to just announce any significant deviations along with the route number. So for the London Bridge example you could announce "S1" when the train is travelling via London Bridge, and announce " S1 via Blackfriars" and at the preceding station announce "This train will not stop at London Bridge" or similar.

Ideally the aim of route numbers or codes is to avoid the need to list every single calling point on every train. For casual travellers, a long list is quite difficult to follow, for commuters it's a lot of audiovisual clutter.

Instead, a route number or code gives a base that the passenger can look up in advance and only significant variations need to be announced.

For comparison, imagine every bus announced every stop it could stop at along its route at regular intervals. That would drive passengers mad!

Still don't understand the advantage of this system of "DESTINATION via LOCATION A and (maybe) LOCATION B"..

"Cambridge via Stevenage" or "Brighton via Gatwick Airport" or "Bedford via Luton Airport Parkway" is enough clues to narrow it down for the majority of passengers. You need a "hook" so that "if the train is stopping at Stevenage and going to Cambridge, that means it probably stops at Letchworth too".

 

[etr221]

"Cambridge via Stevenage" or "Brighton via Gatwick Airport" or "Bedford via Luton Airport Parkway" is enough clues to narrow it down for the majority of passengers. You need a "hook" so that "if the train is stopping at Stevenage and going to Cambridge, that means it probably stops at Letchworth too".

Up to a point, yes. But - 'majority' and 'probably' isn't everybody all the time.

If I want to go to Letchworth, or Ashwell & Morden, how do I know? "probably stops at" isn't enough - and, indeed, will a "Cambridge via Stevenage" train serve Stevenage?

So information as to "every stop by every train" is needed - which can be either by reeling off the (whole) list (which takes time), or having some sort of code (which, to be effective, has to be universally and consistently used, with lots of 'de-code' information available).

 

[Ianno87]

If I want to go to Letchworth, or Ashwell & Morden, how do I know?

The information narrows it down enough to know roughly which set of trains you should then check the stopping pattern for. Letchworth and Ashwell will be different.



Letchworth is turn up and go, so "any train to Cambridge will do".

Ashwell is the sort of place where you'll have looked up beforehand it's the 24-minutes past the hour train.

"probably stops at" isn't enough - and, indeed, will a "Cambridge via Stevenage" train serve Stevenage?

Yes, it's well understood on passenger-facing systems that "via" means "stops at". I don't see how any person would reasonably interpret otherwise. Far more intuitive than knowing a complex set of service codes.

 

[Minstral25]

This really does look like a solution looking for a problem.

People can just look at departure boards and generally know that it is the right train by matching the destination of the train. The calling patterns aren't that complex. Different calling points for trains going to the same ultimate destination really only applies for Bedford (and to a lesser extent Brighton) and that has been the case for many, many years.

Then why does London Transport and other bus operators number their buses? Surely just the destinations would be fine on Buses too.

The reality is that it is useful when explaining disruption to use and for passengers to know their line. For example, how often at London Bridge do you hear the lazy announcement that Bedford to Brighton trains are being disrupted, but many passengers will not realise that this includes the local service via Redhill. However if your said line TL1 and 2 are disrupted everyone would know its their line.

 

[Ianno87]

Then why does London Transport and other bus operators number their buses? Surely just the destinations would be fine on Buses too.

Because buses don't run on a fixed track, and generally (or traditionally) don't have departure boards before boarding, or one bus at a bus stop (platform) at a time.

I can flip the argument on it's head by saying how frequently do passengers get lost with existing information provision? Bus numbers aren't infallible either; I regularly see people getting on the bus the wrong way when they don't appreciate which destination is the direction they want!

However if your said line TL1 and 2 are disrupted everyone would know its their line.

Only if you're aware of what "TL1" and "TL2" actually mean. Most people will be interested in the "17:30 to Horsham".

 

[etr221]

Letchworth is turn up and go, so "any train to Cambridge will do".

Ashwell is the sort of place where you'll have looked up beforehand it's the 24-minutes past the hour train.

So, will 'any train to Cambridge' do? Can I rely on that?

More importantly, if I want to go to Letchworth or Ashwell & Morden, why do I need to know about Bedford, Cambrdge, Luton or Stevenage? All you are suggesting boils down to a not terribly good coding system.

Yes, it's well understood on passenger-facing systems that "via" means "stops at". I don't see how any person would reasonably interpret otherwise. Far more intuitive than knowing a complex set of service codes.

Announcement I once heard (at East Croydon) "This train is for London Bridge via Forest Hill. First stop, London Bridge". So ok for Forest Hill? 'Well understood' doesn't translate to 'universally correct'... some people havn't got the message.

Bottom line: the information I need is that 'this' train stops at 'my destination': which either I get directly 'this train does stop at my station', or by inference: 'this train is to X via Y.'; it is 'number 123' or 'code FRED' can all do the trick, as long as they are understood - and when you have a complex system, I don't think any has an overwhelming advantage. We make do and muddle through with what we have (and, when it comes down to it, it does work) because we're used to it, rather than make the effort to change to a different, and arguably better, system.

 

[HSTEd]

Saying "TL1" or whatever on the front of the destination display hurts noone and would be extremely helpful in clarifying the stopping pattern situation.

It's extra information that can be provided at negligible cost.

 

[Minstral25]

Because buses don't run on a fixed track, and generally (or traditionally) don't have departure boards before boarding, or one bus at a bus stop (platform) at a time.

I can flip the argument on it's head by saying how frequently do passengers get lost with existing information provision? Bus numbers aren't infallible either; I regularly see people getting on the bus the wrong way when they don't appreciate which destination is the direction they want!

Buses do run to fixed routes and bus stops often have multiple routes calling. Bus stops also often have a scrolling screen with next buses due too. Yes no system is infallible but I think having route numbers would be useful additional tool in helping people easily to their destinations.

Only if you're aware of what "TL1" and "TL2" actually mean. Most people will be interested in the "17:30 to Horsham".

Are you aware of the bus number you catch to town. Most people would be and it would help with disruption information. The train routes would similarly become well known.

I'd expect we are both very good with our trains and knowing exactly which train to use, but others are not and anything to help them is useful.

 

[Ianno87]

So, will 'any train to Cambridge' do? Can I rely on that?

Yes, as all Thameslink trains to Cambridge stop at Letchworth.

More importantly, if I want to go to Letchworth or Ashwell & Morden, why do I need to know about Bedford, Cambrdge, Luton or Stevenage? All you are suggesting boils down to a not terribly good coding system.

Given they all call at the same platform, you have to know "this is not the train to Cambridge". Are people routinely getting on the wrong train today? The benefit of most stations in the core (Except St P northbound and Blackfriars southbound) is that you have at least one stop on the train to realise your error from the internal displays, alight, and get back on the correct train.

Announcement I once heard (at East Croydon) "This train is for London Bridge via Forest Hill. First stop, London Bridge". So ok for Forest Hill? 'Well understood' doesn't translate to 'universally correct'... some people havn't got the message.

That's certainly not standard practice. At least they clearly stated "first stop London Bridge" to avoid confusion.

Bottom line: the information I need is that 'this' train stops at 'my destination': which either I get directly 'this train does stop at my station', or by inference: 'this train is to X via Y.'; it is 'number 123' or 'code FRED' can all do the trick, as long as they are understood - and when you have a complex system,

And that information is shown from the time-honoured practice, the stopping pattern on the platform screens or, failing that, inside the train itself.

 

[geordieblue]

The other thing with bus routes is that they're usually all-stops, which makes route numbers far, far easier to display - you don't have to bother with the variations that are so common on the rail network.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why do Thameslink passengers need relatively more help than anywhere else where trains pass through stations to/from a wide range of routes and destinations?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why do Thameslink passengers need relatively more help than anywhere else where trains pass through stations to/from a wide range of routes and destinations?

It’s about dwell time in the core. With 45-60 second dwells, and large numbers of passengers (St Pancras in particular),you want as many passengers as possible to be absolutely sure they are getting on the right train.

As it happens, it generally seems to work pretty well. In my experience, the most common questions asked on the platform at St Pancras are “does this go to Luton” and “does this go to Elstree”. If the former is asked by someone accompanied with luggage, then checking if they mean the airport is necessary!

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s about dwell time in the core. With 45-60 second dwells, and large numbers of passengers (St Pancras in particular),you want as many passengers as possible to be absolutely sure they are getting on the right train.

As it happens, it generally seems to work pretty well. In my experience, the most common questions asked on the platform at St Pancras are “does this go to Luton” and “does this go to Elstree”. If the former is asked by someone accompanied with luggage, then checking if they mean the airport is necessary!

I see. Hence the massive multi coloured platform displays rather than the usual 3 line LED thingies?

 

[Bald Rick]

I see. Hence the massive multi coloured platform displays rather than the usual 3 line LED thingies?

Yep. Took a while to agree the format of those.

 

[WideRanger]

The way this is done in Japan is to have 3 pieces of information:
- Name of the line (especially important where more than one line shares platforms in the core).
- Name of the terminal station
- Stopping pattern

The stopping patterns are very limited in most cases:
- Normal (i.e. stopping at every station officially on the route)
- Rapid (missing out the minor stops, but calling at main stops, and interchange points)
- Express (Calling at only the most important main stops, and interchange points)
- Special Express (Essentially equivalent of UK's Intercity)
- Super Express (What we know as the Shinkansen)

In peak flows on the busiest routes there are also sometimes additional trains with unusual calling patterns (for example, completely nonstop until a certain point, and then calling at all stops), and these tend to have names such as Commuter Express or Liner. But apart from those, the stopping pattern is extremely predictable. The maps in the stations show the calling pattern of each train type, and so if it is a station commonly used, travellers will just look for the calling pattern, rather than trying to see if their particular train stops at the station.

 

[Mikey C]

Buses timetables aren't like train timetables, as the times aren't used in the description in same way. And railway stations have platform displays AND tannoy announcements giving full information.

At a railway station, the xx:13 and xx:43 will be fast trains to Gatwick, the xx:17 and xx:47 will be stopping services to Rainham, the xx:25 and xx:55 will be semi fast services to East Croydon etc. And the train will still be referred to as the 11:43 to Gatwick - "the delayed 11:43 service to Gatwick" - even it arrives at 11:55

With buses, nobody would say I'm waiting for 11:43 bus as the 11:43 goes to the hospital via the park, the 11:39 goes to the railway station and the 11:45 goes the slow way to the hospital via the railway station and school.

"The bus approaching is the delayed 11:43 service to King's Hospital, called at Acacia Gardens, London Road, Hazel Road, Hilltop Park and all stops via Lower Snodsbridge"

 

[JonathanH]

I note that Class 345s show a reporting code in their side displays.

It should be noted that the reporting codes of Thameslink trains actually convey some useful information about calling patterns - eg the off-pattern higher numbered 9Rxx codes from St Pancras are faster trains than the on-pattern lower numbered 9Rxx codes, not that they are running at the moment. I guess that using these figures would be seen as 'too complicated' but if it is regular passengers who this is being targetted at maybe they could learn their service.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

I think there's some misunderstandings here - surely no Parisian (except the transport nerds!) memorises the whole list of headcode permutations? I would assume you'd just remember "On my commute to work I look for second letter A meaning express and branch doesn't matter. On my way home, I want first letter B meaning my branch and third letter X or Y because those are the stopping patterns that serve my station." The whole point, as I see it, is that not everyone looks at every piece of information given - just as, in Britain today, a Thameslink passenger for Gatwick won't care whether their train continues to stop at Haywards Heath (without checking current service patterns to see if this is a realistic example!)

 

[HSTEd]

I think there's some misunderstandings here - surely no Parisian (except the transport nerds!) memorises the whole list of headcode permutations?

Or at least, does not set out specifically to do so!

I imagine if you travel alot on the RER for years you might end up picking up lots of them without really putting effort in.