Thanks!
(Sorry I mistakenly thought the search here required a minimum of 3-letters, I must have been thinking of a different forum, I should have just searched here in the first place)
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RealTimeTrains website
- Thread starter Nagora
- Start date
(Sorry I mistakenly thought the search here required a minimum of 3-letters, I must have been thinking of a different forum, I should have just searched here in the first place)
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Freightmaster
Verified Rep
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 3,845
Steddenm
Member
I'm guessing as its not a technically scheduled stop it is only there to reverse b
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
This entry refers to another train passing. I assume that there is a timing allowance because of another train on another platform meaning that this train cannot move out of the station.
I think the poster is referring the the time being recorded as a pass, rather than the pathing stop.
Earle Grey
Member
No the incorrect activity codes (RM,A) have been published; which have then been picked up on down steam systems to produce this word soup. Personally RM or RM, OP at a stretch would have done to advise operating staff what was happening to this service at this location.
Attachments
RM is quite correct - the train reverses there.
A isn't inherently wrong - it refers to a stop inserted for pathing reasons, and I'm sure the train could leave earlier if a path were available. But since the train has to stop there anyway to reverse, it's somewhat superfluous.
RTT's "translation" of activity code A is not entirely accurate - whilst it can be due to awaiting a passing train (e.g. at a a loop on a single track route), it is also used when simply awaiting a path on a double (or higher) track route. The section in the brackets "(passing train)" just needs to be replaced by "reasons", then it would be correct and cover virtually all foreseeable scenarios.
This issue has been raised before; the same goes for incorrect or incomplete "translations" of cancellation reasons, e.g. MS being shown as "replaced by a slower train" which doesn't properly reflect its actual usage. It's a shame really, because it is an incredibly useful resource overall. It's just a shame that the people behind the site don't seem to want to listen to people who actually use and allocate these codes in real life...
A isn't inherently wrong - it refers to a stop inserted for pathing reasons, and I'm sure the train could leave earlier if a path were available. But since the train has to stop there anyway to reverse, it's somewhat superfluous.
RTT's "translation" of activity code A is not entirely accurate - whilst it can be due to awaiting a passing train (e.g. at a a loop on a single track route), it is also used when simply awaiting a path on a double (or higher) track route. The section in the brackets "(passing train)" just needs to be replaced by "reasons", then it would be correct and cover virtually all foreseeable scenarios.
This issue has been raised before; the same goes for incorrect or incomplete "translations" of cancellation reasons, e.g. MS being shown as "replaced by a slower train" which doesn't properly reflect its actual usage. It's a shame really, because it is an incredibly useful resource overall. It's just a shame that the people behind the site don't seem to want to listen to people who actually use and allocate these codes in real life...
My view for most of these codes* is that if the definition of it in the code dictionaries that we have access to are wrong then they are the things that should be corrected. It is no good saying that a code is used in this way and the official definition not being appropriately used. I believe that the reason it shows the current definition is due to a discussion in this very thread.
*apart from I know that the delay codes are out of date
*apart from I know that the delay codes are out of date
The issue is complicated by four main issues:
1. There are often multiple different definitions depending on the sources you look at (e.g. in TPS I'm fairly sure the definition for 'A' is 'Train stops or shunts for other trains to pass') this leads to:
2. There are differing understandings about how to apply all the various codes.
3. There will always be situations where the codes cannot be applied strictly. Particularly for services that are 'unusual' such as charters or departmental trains.
4. Sometimes planners get the codes wrong. It happens, there's no way for the computer to know it's an A stop not a OP stop, for example (at least not without a whole load of other data being uploaded into the system).
These also apply to all the other data RTT gets from the feeds to varying extents.
Fundamentally, for 99% of users I think RTT gets the balance of these messages right. And for the cases I personally wouldn't do things the same way, I accept that @Tom has spent the time and effort to build the site and therefore gets to make those calls, and I just quietly thank them for the fact it exists at all.
You could add 'among the people who actually allocate them'
XCTurbostar
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 2,134
Is anyone else finding the ads on RTT to be very obnoxious as of late? I have had several full screen adverts, some which cannot be dismissed and some which require two 'close' clicks to hide. I want to support the site but the adverts are pushing me away.
We can’t do anything about ads that are objectionable if we don’t know anything about them. We have done a hell of a lot of work to remove dodgy ones (to the degree we cut down to just google for most of May) in the last 2 months that has lost us a huge amount of money.
If there are bad ads in your eyes, as I’ve said before, report them to my support team. Screenshot and link to where they go preferably. Then we can deal with it.
The reality of ads is that what you see is different to what I see, etc. I haven’t seen anything bad in the last few weeks personally but I’m sure others have.
(We will be launching an ad free subscription soon.)
If there are bad ads in your eyes, as I’ve said before, report them to my support team. Screenshot and link to where they go preferably. Then we can deal with it.
The reality of ads is that what you see is different to what I see, etc. I haven’t seen anything bad in the last few weeks personally but I’m sure others have.
(We will be launching an ad free subscription soon.)
I've reported a few through the official channels recently, it looks like something that they're actively trying to fix having seen them a bit less in recent weeks
XCTurbostar
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 2,134
I appreciate your fast response and commitment, I will be reporting them from now onwards.
I look forward to the subscription service, hopefully its a reasonable price.
duffield
Established Member
My perception is that the "ad experience" on RTT has settled down from "annoying" to "acceptable" over the last few months.
tfw756rider
Member
The 730/2s are now showing in the correct green livery (no longer the incorrect orange/purple), which is good.
However, the Marston Vale 150s, the 756s and the 807s still have no graphics - does @Tom or anyone else know when we might expect them to be added?
However, the Marston Vale 150s, the 756s and the 807s still have no graphics - does @Tom or anyone else know when we might expect them to be added?
If its been reported via the official channels then it'll probably be on the to do list, but I wouldn't be surprised if graphics aren't prioritised over other things if I'm honest
I agree that the graphics are a nice to have, there are many other things on RTT that are far more important to have available than a pretty graphic of a train.
In fact on a mobile phone screen, the graphics use up space at the top of the screen so that you have to scroll down further to get to the important information.
I know it would create more work but for me, the preference would be to only have the graphics displayed in the Simple mode (which I never use) but get rid of them in the Detailed mode. This is because I would suspect that the majority of the users of RTT Detailed mode would probably already know what a 150, 756 and 807 and every other train type looks like.
While I know what they look like, it's much easier for me to identify it from the pictures at a glance than parse the text
duffield
Established Member
The graphics aren't just pretty pictures though! They give you the formation, so you can locate your reserved coach/1st class/wheelchair space where applicable, and that information is only available via the graphic. I use detailed mode and would very much miss this info. It's especially important for 7+ coach trains and for double units with no gangway. Although this information is mostly available from the screens on the platform, it's only for the next train, which isn't great if you have two services in quick succession.