XC (and maybe general)Cancellations

[GazUk]

Hello all

Not too sure if this thread is posted in the right section or not (sorry in advance if it's wrong!) just wondering about something, I was waiting at leamington for the 1822 CH service to Kidderminster and I heard on the tannoy that the XC service to Manchester that originally started out as the 1545 from Bournemouth was cancelled between Bournemouth and birmingham new st.

Now this cancelled XC service trundled through leamington spa around 1810 and I guess that the reason is that there was no guard available at Bournemouth so the train ran light to the next available stop where a guard might be available, would that be right? And is that a common practice across the whole of the network?

Also on a side note, my 1822 CH service which according to RTT was pathed as a class 158 dmu was to my surprise a loco hauled class 67 which leads me to ask this - were the carriages mk4's or modified mk3's that this unit hauls?

 

[185143]

Chiltern have plug door mk3s.

 

[Kite159]

What RTT says a service is pathed for doesn't mean it is what you will get.

 

[windnoise69]

XC regularly send a unit ECS in its origional path of it is cancelled following there being no guard. It means the unit is in correct position for later in the day, for matainaince requirements.

 

[PHILIPE]

What RTT says a service is pathed for doesn't mean it is what you will get.

I quite agree, especially in view of a Poster saying yesterday that this timing has been pointed out 1000 times on the Forum !!!. If a train is required to run at 100 mph max subject to line speed and provided the booked traction can maintain that speed you can use any 100 mph traction as the timing path, even a 175 whether they work the route or not.

 

[yorkie]

Also on a side note, my 1822 CH service which according to RTT was pathed as a class 158 dmu was to my surprise a loco hauled class 67 which leads me to ask this -

It's just a timing load.

The open data used by sites such as OTT and RTT don't show allocations.

were the carriages mk4's or modified mk3's that this unit hauls?

Mk3s.

All Mk4s are used by East Coast on the ECML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I quite agree, especially in view of a Poster saying yesterday that this timing has been pointed out 1000 times on the Forum !!!. If a train is required to run at 100 mph max subject to line speed and provided the booked traction can maintain that speed you can use any 100 mph traction as the timing path, even a 175 whether they work the route or not.

Well maybe not 1,000 times, but certainly timing loads have been mentioned a lot of times.

 

[PHILIPE]

It's just a timing load.

The open data used by sites such as OTT and RTT don't show allocations.

Mk3s.

All Mk4s are used by East Coast on the ECML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well maybe not 1,000 times, but certainly timing loads have been mentioned a lot of times.

The poster was exaggerating to highlight the point that the issue has to be pointed out so many times and some people still do not understand.

 

[The Planner]

If a train is required to run at 100 mph max subject to line speed and provided the booked traction can maintain that speed you can use any 100 mph traction as the timing path, even a 175 whether they work the route or not.

In theory yes, reality no. Unless a traction type uses a route chances are that SRTs wont exist for it.

 

[GazUk]

Thank you for the responses guys, regarding the carriages it was rather dark at the time, fully aware that Mk4 carriages are in use on the ecml but I was not aware that some mk3 stock have been converted from the traditional slam doors to sliding doors- I do now though

The poster was exaggerating to highlight the point that the issue has to be pointed out so many times and some people still do not understand.

And I've never been aware of what a timing load is, like regarding the mk3 stock, I do now though- it's just that sometimes some "non-anorak" types like myself that do not know it all,see something like a dmu on RTT (doesn't matter what class) and think another type of dmu class has been substituted in its place.
And then we get blasted it appears for asking "stupid" questions by many others on here thinking we should already know because it's been discussed countless amount of times before it appears......

 

[yorkie]

The poster was exaggerating ....

Yes, I realised you were exaggerating

...t's just that sometimes some "non-anorak" types like myself that do not know it all,see something like a dmu on RTT (doesn't matter what class) and think another type of dmu class has been substituted in its place.
And then we get blasted it appears for asking "stupid" questions by many others on here thinking we should already know because it's been discussed countless amount of times before it appears......

I agree, and I don't think the wording on some websites helps.

For example Realtimetrains says "Pathed as Class 158 (Express Sprinter) DMU" admittedly it doesn't say "allocated as" which is not quite as misleading as some people interpret, but it's still arguably a cause of confusion.

However, I am not sure what would be appropriate wording. Perhaps a disclaimer "Allocations are not known by this site" or something might help, maybe in combination with a link to an explanation (similar to the explanation I've linked to above).

I predict we will probably have another thread where someone thinks the timing load is the allocation before the end of the year And I predict a double-figure number of threads for 2015. (That said, if the open data websites change their wording, I'll change my predictions!)