Highland Chieftain 1S16 now 1W96

[stuart]

Can anyone enlighten me as to why the LNER Highland Chieftain (1200 Kings Cross to Inverness) which was formerly 1S16 is now running as 1W96? Abedeen and Stirling trains also now seem to have W codes but have kept their former sequence numbers. Is it simply a change to alert control staff to the fact that the train continues beyond Edinburgh? Or is it is any way related to the fact that the Scotrail HST training services were run under 2W headcodes?

And why 1W96 rather than 1W16?

 

[swt_passenger]

Looking at a day’s RTT departures from Kings Cross it does look as though “W” might now be used to indicate “north of” Edinburgh. The only through Glasgow train is still an “S”.

The lack of 1W16 may be because it is already in use elsewhere in Scotland.

 

[Mag_seven]

Is this the first instance of a regular cross-border service heading to Scotland not having an "S" headcode? (putting aside special headcodes such as "Q", "X" or "Z")

 

[pdeaves]

The lack of 1W16 may be because it is already in use elsewhere in Scotland.

For those interested, 1W16 is the 1825 Wemyss Bay-Glasgow Central (plus five other trains not in Scotland).

 

[Ianno87]

Is this the first instance of a regular cross-border service heading to Scotland not having an "S" headcode? (putting aside special headcodes such as "Q", "X" or "Z")

Services from Carlisle via Dumfries appear to be 'L': http://www.opentraintimes.com/schedule/G20045/2019-08-20

 

[Peter0124]

Services from Carlisle via Dumfries appear to be 'L': http://www.opentraintimes.com/schedule/G20045/2019-08-20

And Carlisle-Glasgow services too. Ones which originate or previously originated from Newcastle use S headcodes.

 

[800002]

For those interested, 1W16 is the 1825 Wemyss Bay-Glasgow Central (plus five other trains not in Scotland).

Surely there is little interaction between the Wemyss Bay - Glasgow Central and the KX - Inverness. Thinking mainly with ARS and such.
I know my geography isn't what it could be, scotland wise, but arn't they opposite sides of the network?

 

[ainsworth74]

I raised this with an informed source and they explained that it was at the request of Network Rail Scotland to distinguish them from services that terminate at Edinburgh.

 

[800002]

I raised this with an informed source and they explained that it was at the request of Network Rail Scotland to distinguish them from services that terminate at Edinburgh.

Thanks, I was actually quite interested.

Any particular reason for W96 inparticular?

 

[High Dyke]

Is this the first instance of a regular cross-border service heading to Scotland not having an "S" headcode? (putting aside special headcodes such as "Q", "X" or "Z")

Probably not. Local services between the 'former' Eastern & Midland regions have long since dropped the use of E & M letter designations to distinguish cross-boundary workings.

 

[stuart]

Thanks for the replies so far - still be interesting to know about the "96" (no, no conflict with Wemyss Bay services on the HML!) and why the through services to Glasgow aren't included.

One thought is that the southbound sleeper is knocking around Inverness as 5M16 and 1M16 at about the same time at the Chieftain would be 1W16 and 5W16, and "M" can be misread as "W".

 

[800002]

I am going to speculate now:-
*pinch of salt at the ready, please.
With W96 being the only inverness service, that could be a reason to denote it as such, for the service pattern. But then why wouldn't the W22 Stirling be treated the same?

I'm going to return to my comfy arm chair now.

 

[Ianno87]

I raised this with an informed source and they explained that it was at the request of Network Rail Scotland to distinguish them from services that terminate at Edinburgh.

Presumably to avoid them being routed into the new bay platform at Waverley....

 

[stuart]

With W96 being the only inverness service, that could be a reason to denote it as such, for the service pattern. But then why wouldn't the W22 Stirling be treated the same?

An interesting thought, but in terms of the service patterns, 1S16 used to fit in not only with the other departures from KGX, but also with the preceding and following services on the Highland Main Line, which are 1H15 and 1H17.

 

[stuart]

Presumably to avoid them being routed into the new bay platform at Waverley....

Makes sense: "W = think at Waverley!". But then why not the Glasgow services too?

 

[800002]

An interesting thought, but in terms of the service patterns, 1S16 used to fit in not only with the other departures from KGX, but also with the preceding and following services on the Highland Main Line, which are 1H15 and 1H17.

For now, it remains a mystery...

It all seemed to work well before, didn't it?

There must have been a fairly decent reason for the change. It wouldn't be the first time something has changes for the sheer heck of it though...

 

[Aictos]

I raised this with an informed source and they explained that it was at the request of Network Rail Scotland to distinguish them from services that terminate at Edinburgh.

This is despite the industry managing for years with 1S headcodes and managing to tell the difference between a LNER terminating at Edinburgh and a LNER going further north....

#facepalm

 

[ainsworth74]

I've grilled my source further and they've explained that 1W16 is used on Sundays by a Sheffield to Scarborough service via Doncaster so was not available so they just chose 96. Then Monday to Saturday whilst 1W16 would be available they decided for consistency to use 1W96 the rest of the week as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is despite the industry managing for years with 1S headcodes and managing to tell the difference between a LNER terminating at Edinburgh and a LNER going further north....

#facepalm

There didn't used to be a bay platform long enough to trap an LNER set in until recently. So less facepalm and more making sure to avoid a risk to performance.

 

[Ianno87]

Makes sense: "W = think at Waverley!". But then why not the Glasgow services too?

Get the Inverness wrong and you stuff up the Highland Main Line. Get the Glasgow wrong and it might be less consequential.

Either that, or the Glasgow ordinarily arrives when the bay is occupied, so less chance of being routed in error or something.

 

[Aictos]

There didn't used to be a bay platform long enough to trap an LNER set in until recently. So less facepalm and more making sure to avoid a risk to performance.

Maybe if you’re talking multiple services to Inverness for example then maybe someone could route it into a bay platform but with only one daily LNER service to Inverness I question the wisdom in use, that shouldn’t be happening!

 

[800002]

I've grilled my source further and they've explained that 1W16 is used on Sundays by a Sheffield to Scarborough service via Doncaster so was not available so they just chose 96. Then Monday to Saturday whilst 1W16 would be available they decided for consistency to use 1W96 the rest of the week as well.

I take mine 'well done'... thanks. That would certainly qualify as a valid reason.
Four hours isn't ARS compliant, is it now?

I failed to spot that service on the very top of the result list - *facepalm*

There didn't used to be a bay platform long enough to trap an LNER set in until recently. So less facepalm and more making sure to avoid a risk to performance.

Will we ever get over our incessent need to modify a perfectly good and operatable network??!!

 

[ainsworth74]

Maybe if you’re talking multiple services to Inverness for example then maybe someone could route it into a bay platform but with only one daily LNER service to Inverness I question the wisdom in use, that shouldn’t be happening!

There are of course seven services (six with W headcodes) that proceed north of Edinburgh and therefore cannot risk being routed into the bay platforms by accident. Personally I can see the logic in ensuring that there is a clue for the signaller to make sure that, if they're taking over from ARS for some reason, they don't make a mistake and route the train into the bay platforms with the result the driver accepts it and traps the train in the bay or, at the least, comes to a stand in Edinburgh throat whilst ringing up and challenging the route. Also recall that it's quicker for a signaller to see 1W and think "Ah, definetly going through Edinburgh" than go "hmm, 1S, better just double check where that's going".

I don't understand why you're opposed to a perfectly sensible and minor change to ensure that the risk is as low as reasonably practical of a mistake being made?

Will we ever get over our incessent need to modify a perfectly good and operatable network??!!

I suppose if you prefer to never see any service improvements? The bay has been installed to enable more services to run so I'm not sure that it's "incessant" or anything else that might be perceived to be negative. Personally I like seeing new infrastructure being installed. It's a sign of a healthy and developing network.

 

[800002]

Maybe if you’re talking multiple services to Inverness for example then maybe someone could route it into a bay platform but with only one daily LNER service to Inverness I question the wisdom in use, that shouldn’t be happening!

I think maybe the risk averse chappie (or chapess) stepped in and said something to effect of 'If it is a risk to one service, then that is enough justification to amend the lot'. I personally would concur with that.

Afterall, it's not just the inverness that's been amended, as described above.

The fact it could have happened before, with signaller error, really makes no difference I suppose... the signaller is capable of putting anything, anywhere, afterall. Just makes sense to avoid the risk as I see it.

 

[Ianno87]

Get the Inverness wrong and you stuff up the Highland Main Line. Get the Glasgow wrong and it might be less consequential.

Either that, or the Glasgow ordinarily arrives when the bay is occupied, so less chance of being routed in error or something.

The Glasgow of course is the only cross-Edinburgh electric LNER service, which is another difference.

 

[Highlandspring]

This is nothing to do with docking at the Waverley, it was done at the request of Scotland Route to highlight to LNE Route signallers and TRCs the importance of ensuring these services get a good run and are well regulated en route.

A late presentation over the border of 1W96 in particular can completely wreck the day's PPM within Scotland Route as it slaughters many, many services as it interacts with other traffic around Edinburgh, Larbert, Perth and on the Highland Main Line.

 

[800002]

it was done at the request of Scotland Route to highlight to LNE Route signallers and TRCs the importance of ensuring these services get a good run and are well regulated en route.

That is certainly an explination I can get onboard with.

 

[Ianno87]

This is nothing to do with docking at the Waverley, it was done at the request of Scotland Route to highlight to LNE Route signallers and TRCs the importance of ensuring these services get a good run and are well regulated en route.

A late presentation over the border of 1W96 in particular can completely wreck the day's PPM within Scotland Route as it slaughters many, many services as it interacts with other traffic around Edinburgh, Larbert, Perth and on the Highland Main Line.

And using 9S would be confusing with Brighton-Cambridge Thameslink services at the south end of the ECML. Makes sense.

 

[800002]

And using 9S would be confusing with Brighton-Cambridge Thameslink services at the south end of the ECML. Makes se

Would the 9Sxx Euston (EUS) to Edinburgh (EDB) services pose potential issues with that, also?

 

[30907]

Rather OT: W was never used in headcode boxes (hence V for Western), any idea when it started getting used in 4-character headcodes? I have a vague memory that the SR may have started it but dont have old WTTs to hand.