1K20 (1542 Manchester Piccadilly to Hull)

Real time trains is showing this as a Class 158 Express Sprinter. Have TPE loaned some?

185143 said:

Real time trains is showing this as a Class 158 Express Sprinter. Have TPE loaned some?

Click to expand...

Presumably not. Remember that real time trains only shows what diagrams are timed for, not necessarily what they are booked for. For example, a lot of the Chiltern stuff is shown on there as timed for a 158 - Chiltern don't have any 158s, and it would be a 165 or 168 instead.

185143 said:

Real time trains is showing this as a Class 158 Express Sprinter. Have TPE loaned some?

Click to expand...

Class 170s are timed as class 158

170306 was allocated not a 158.

Qwerty133 said:

Class 170s are timed as class 158

Click to expand...

No they aren't, 158s are DMU E 090, 170s are DMU E 100.

185143 said:

Real time trains is showing this as a Class 158 Express Sprinter. Have TPE loaned some?

Click to expand...

No it isn't showing that. Realtime trains does not show what type of train is allocated.

It will show what timings have been used, which is a very different matter, and more to do with timetabling than anything else.

Sacro said:

No they aren't, 158s are DMU E 090, 170s are DMU E 100.

Click to expand...

175s are DMU E 100, but I know several services booked for 175s are timed as 158s.

I'm afraid 170s are timed as 170s on all regular TransPennine routes they cover - they would only ever be timed as DMU(E) or DMU(S) if they were off a normal route and there were no official 170 SRTs available. I have no idea where the 158 notation on realtime trains has come from.

Bit of a contradiction is what Real Train Times says:

Real Train Times said:

Operational Information
Schedule from CIF
Timed for 100mph
Class 158 (Express Sprinter) DMU

Click to expand...

I think it's an error in the system. The ATW Manchester-Llandudno services also show as 100mph 158s instead of 100mph 175s.

Also the XC services on the WCML show 125mph timing when 220s and 221s with the tilt disabled are used.

headshot119 said:

175s are DMU E 100, but I know several services booked for 175s are timed as 158s.

Click to expand...

Yeh, most (all?) of ATW's 175 services show up to be timed for 158's.


http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P40999/2013/04/08/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P41182/2013/04/08/advanced

Widnes Planner said:

I'm afraid 170s are timed as 170s on all regular TransPennine routes they cover - they would only ever be timed as DMU(E) or DMU(S) if they were off a normal route and there were no official 170 SRTs available. I have no idea where the 158 notation on realtime trains has come from.

Click to expand...

The CIF file specification states that DMU E represents a Class 158 DMU.

DMU Type Codes :
Diesel Mechanical Multiple Units (Air Brake):
A Class 14x series 2-axle
E Class 158
N Class 165/0
S Class 150, 153, 155 or 156
T Class 165/1 or 166
V Virgin Voyager Class 220/221
X Class 159

I've also noticed which Northern services are Pacer booked and which ones are Sprinter booked are quite often the wrong way around on Real Train Times.

Tom said:

The CIF file specification states that DMU E represents a Class 158 DMU.

DMU Type Codes :
Diesel Mechanical Multiple Units (Air Brake):
A Class 14x series 2-axle
E Class 158
N Class 165/0
S Class 150, 153, 155 or 156
T Class 165/1 or 166
V Virgin Voyager Class 220/221
X Class 159

Click to expand...

Tom, I understand that bit - my puzzlement is that the 170s are timed in Network Rail's TPS as 170s, not as DMU(E), so I don't understand where in the data transfer process this gets mixed into the data that goes over to real time trains.

Widnes Planner said:

Tom, I understand that bit - my puzzlement is that the 170s are timed in Network Rail's TPS as 170s, not as DMU(E), so I don't understand where in the data transfer process this gets mixed into the data that goes over to real time trains.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of TPS, but each train will have two timing loads, one of which may be hidden from the user.

In Trainplan, which was used before TPS, both of these timing loads were visible to planners and could be independently altered if required.

The Trainplan Timing Load was used to calculate Sectional Running Times (SRT's) appropriate to the trains being planned. Additionally, there was a TSDB Timing Load, which was a much more simplified and limited value. It is the latter timing load that appears in the CIF.

A Trainplan Timing Load would automatically match to a TSDB Timing Load, but it was possible to subsequently alter the TSDB Timing Load to a different value. This was very useful if, for example, running trains over routes they don't normally work, where the relevant Trainplan Timing Load was not populated with SRT's. Other uses include changing traction type, if being replaced by something that can achieve the SRT's.

Not all tools in Train Planners' armoury are visible to end users, as they don't make it into the CIF. Three types of timing allowance are visible in TRUST and online systems - engineering, pathing and performance, but a fourth, adjustment allowance, isn't. This is a vital tool for planners, but is invisible to anybody without access to planning software. It is used to extend or reduce SRT's where required, such as differential speed junctions or when the timing load is not wholly appropriate to the train being timed. Despite what many people assume, timings are not held in the planning software for all trains over all routes. In fact, when it comes to charters and other one-off movements, it is highly unlikely that any SRT's exist in the software for that specific train. A train shown as timed to a maximum speed of 75mph or 95mph may not actually have been timed as such, that is just what the CIF outputs. Changes of Timing Load can also be made en-route.

I am pleased to see these officially approved open online systems, but do feel that many of the questions arising are simply due to people over-analysing things that don't really need to be analysed!

I hope this gives a better understanding of some of the issues raised in this thread and in some others.