RealTimeTrains website

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Could you sort it out?

I'm sure you could have worded this more nicely.

 

[XAM2175]

I’ve noticed inaccuracies in the “pathed as” information, for example 4L92, a solid 66, is “booked” as an “electric locomotive”. Could you sort it out?

As has been stated again and again and again, this has nothing to do with RTT and everything to do with the data in the railway's own systems being wrong.

I'm beginning to think that RTT should hide the pathing data from users until they've clicked a button acknowledging that they understand this.

 

[yorkie]

I’ve noticed inaccuracies in the “pathed as” information, for example 4L92, a solid 66, is “booked” as an “electric locomotive”. Could you sort it out?

This is based on a timing load in the data feed. Open data sites such as OTT & RTT do not show the booked traction as such.

A timing load doesn't necessarily indicate the booked traction.

 

[12LDA28C]

I’ve noticed inaccuracies in the “pathed as” information, for example 4L92, a solid 66, is “booked” as an “electric locomotive”. Could you sort it out?

Pretty rude. Feel free to develop your own alternative system if RTT doesn't provide the level of detail / accuracy you need. Sheesh.

 

[Class15]

Pretty rude. Feel free to develop your own alternative system if RTT doesn't provide the level of detail / accuracy you need. Sheesh.

I’m just saying it would be helpful if these were corrected, as on multiple times I’ve gone to see this train and every time it’s been a 66, not an electric.

I’m sorry if I was rude.

 

[XAM2175]

I’m just saying it would be helpful if these were corrected, as on multiple times I’ve gone to see this train and every time it’s been a 66, not an electric.

Yet you can't be bothered reading the posts telling you why it's not RTT's job to fix it?

 

[louis97]

I’m just saying it would be helpful if these were corrected, as on multiple times I’ve gone to see this train and every time it’s been a 66, not an electric.

I’m sorry if I was rude.

Corrected in what way? We don't alter the data we receive, so this is out of our hands. The pathed as information is how the train is planned, not what it is booked. Please understand this is your misunderstanding of what 'pathed as' means.

 

[12LDA28C]

I’m just saying it would be helpful if these were corrected, as on multiple times I’ve gone to see this train and every time it’s been a 66, not an electric.

I’m sorry if I was rude.

You are aware that FOCs can use whatever loco(s) they want on their trains and don't have to allocate the booked type of traction, or what it might indicate on RTT, right?

 

[Dai Corner]

I’m just saying it would be helpful if these were corrected, as on multiple times I’ve gone to see this train and every time it’s been a 66, not an electric.

I’m sorry if I was rude.

I believe sources such as Freightmaster may provide the sort of information you're looking for.

 

[Class15]

I believe sources such as Freightmaster may provide the sort of information you're looking for.

Yeah, but require a paid subscription.

You are aware that FOCs can use whatever loco(s) they want on their trains and don't have to allocate the booked type of traction, or what it might indicate on RTT, right?

No I know that, but if I may, I suggest that RTT reviews a few services so that the normal motive power is shown rather than the booked motive power. Overall, RTT is a wonderful website, but I just have that one issue with it.

 

[Tom]

I have no time to review a number of train services for, in all honesty, the benefit of very few of the users. There are around 25,000 services every day. We are pursuing the route of allocations to solve this problem rather than making changes to schedules which would damage the integrity of our database from upstream sources. Some freight paths literally change every other day.

 

[Class15]

I have no time to review a number of train services for, in all honesty, the benefit of very few of the users. There are around 25,000 services every day. We are pursuing the route of allocations to solve this problem rather than making changes to schedules which would damage the integrity of our database from upstream sources. Some freight paths literally change every other day.

Ok, sorry, I was asking for one particular service but I understand.

 

[XAM2175]

No I know that, but if I may, I suggest that RTT reviews a few services so that the normal motive power is shown rather than the booked motive power. Overall, RTT is a wonderful website, but I just have that one issue with it.

You've already been told that it's not even the booked power

Ok, sorry, I was asking for one particular service but I understand.

One particular service for you, then one other particular service for somebody else, and so on and so forth. It's obviously unsustainable.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm beginning to think that RTT should hide the pathing data from users until they've clicked a button acknowledging that they understand this.

I'd agree with this; it seems to be a very common cause of queries about what might or might not be running.

 

[Freightmaster]

I believe sources such as Freightmaster may provide the sort of information you're looking for.

Correct, but even though I constantly check TOPS lists and update my timetables accordingly,
I can still only show the 'usual' motive power for a particular train, rather than a cast iron
guarantee that a particular loco class will turn up on the day.

An excellent current example of this are the non-Tesco Anglo-Scottish DRS intermodal workings to
and from Daventry which are currently being diverted via the G+SW due to the Carstairs blockade.

Over the past few weeks, they have been worked south of Carlisle by 68s (most common),
66s and 88s on a basically random basis, so despite monitoring them on a daily basis,
my timetables cannot show for certain what class of locos will turn up on those, or any
other freight services, only what is most likely to appear.


It's a bit like predicting the weather or stock markets to be honest!!





MARK

 

[Class15]

Correct, but even though I constantly check TOPS lists and update my timetables accordingly,
I can still only show the 'usual' motive power for a particular train, rather than a cast iron
guarantee that a particular loco class will turn up on the day.

An excellent current example of this are the non-Tesco Anglo-Scottish DRS intermodal workings to
and from Daventry which are currently being diverted via the G+SW due to the Carstairs blockade.

Over the past few weeks, they have been worked south of Carlisle by 68s (most common),
66s and 88s on a seemingly random basis, so despite my best efforts my timetables cannot
show for certain what class of locos will turn up on those, or any other freight services,
only what is most likely to appear.





MARK

Does Freightmaster give access to TOPS allocations better than Railcam does? If so, I’ll consider it.

 

[43096]

I’m just saying it would be helpful if these were corrected, as on multiple times I’ve gone to see this train and every time it’s been a 66, not an electric.

It doesn't need correcting as the data is correct. It is what the service is pathed as NOT what the traction is.

Yeah, but require a paid subscription.

So you're complaining about a free service yet won't pay for something that does have the information you want.

It can't be that important to you in that case.

No I know that, but if I may, I suggest that RTT reviews a few services so that the normal motive power is shown rather than the booked motive power. Overall, RTT is a wonderful website, but I just have that one issue with it.

As above. You really need to take on board about what this data means - goodness knows it has been explained often enough.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

While this request by @Class15 wasn't worded particularly great, y'all might want to now take care not to gang up on this user. If a couple of people have already pointed out how his post was worded, explained pathing, and seen him apologise, there is surely no need for more users to then chip in to give the same criticism he's already received?

Might I politely request if @Tom might be able to stop trains disappearing from Simple View a few minutes before they actually depart? I've noticed this only within the past year, which is slightly annoying if I need to find out very quickly (so that it doesn't leave while I'm searching for it) where a train is calling - the destination boards aren't always the fastest at some stations - and the first train shown on RTT quick view is the train after!

 

[Class15]

It doesn't need correcting as the data is correct. It is what the service is pathed as NOT what the traction is.

So you're complaining about a free service yet won't pay for something that does have the information you want.

It can't be that important to you in that case.

As above. You really need to take on board about what this data means - goodness knows it has been explained often enough.

That’s not true - I have Railcam which requires £4 a month.

Also, I wasn’t complaining, I was suggesting something.

While this request by @Class15 wasn't worded particularly great, y'all might want to now take care not to gang up on this user. If a couple of people have already pointed out how his post was worded, explained pathing, and seen him apologise, there is surely no need for more users to then chip in to give the same criticism he's already received?

If they were ganging up on me, they didn’t do a particularly good job.

Might I politely request if @Tom might be able to stop trains disappearing from Simple View a few minutes before they actually depart? I've noticed this only within the past year, which is slightly annoying if I need to find out very quickly (so that it doesn't leave while I'm searching for it) where a train is calling - the destination boards aren't always the fastest at some stations - and the first train shown on RTT quick view is the train after!

You could use detailed view maybe?

Another suggestion @Tom , when a train is cancelled we can’t see which platform it was meant to go from - it would be quite useful if we could?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

You could use detailed view maybe?

Another suggestion @Tom , when a train is cancelled we can’t see which platform it was meant to go from - it would be quite useful if we could?

As I said, I’m talking about use in situations where I need to check quickly where the train is going, and searching for a “departed” train in Detailed mode is not time efficient. There doesn’t seem a need to remove a train from Departures if it hasn’t actually departed?

 

[Class15]

As I said, I’m talking about use in situations where I need to check quickly where the train is going, and searching for a “departed” train in Detailed mode is not time efficient. There doesn’t seem a need to remove a train from Departures if it hasn’t actually departed?

I see.

 

[Tom]

Trains will stay on the simple mode departures board if:

• The expected (or actual) departure hasn't passed, or
• The expected (or actual) departure has passed and the train is marked as Arriving, At Platform, Ready to Depart or Departing

In all other cases the train will be removed because its an unsafe assumption to leave it present if its potentially gone.

This has been the case for as long as I can remember. You can remove this behaviour if you take it off searching for 'now' (e.g. in quick search do a search like "CDF at 1300").

I'd agree with this; it seems to be a very common cause of queries about what might or might not be running.

I don't see any point in removing it - the term "Pathed as" seems pretty clear to me and the number of support cases we now get about it (which is the only metric I really care about) probably averages one a week. No biggie in the grand scheme of things. If people want to get over-excited on forums about it though ...

Another suggestion @Tom , when a train is cancelled we can’t see which platform it was meant to go from - it would be quite useful if we could?

I don't see a reasonable use case for that when you consider the general usage of the site. Once a train is cancelled I don't see a material need for the platform ...

 

[Class15]

I don't see a reasonable use case for that when you consider the general usage of the site. Once a train is cancelled I don't see a material need for the platform ...

possibly for people who want to use the train in the future - it’s easier than changing the calendar.

 

[12LDA28C]

possibly for people who want to use the train in the future - it’s easier than changing the calendar.

Then surely they would check what platform the particular train is due to leave from on the day they want to travel. Doesn't seem like a great plan to assume it will leave from the same platform it was booked to at some point in the past, on a day it was cancelled.

Or how about the revolutionary idea of just turning up at a station with sufficient time to check the information screens and make your way to whichever platform your train is shown?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Or how about the revolutionary idea of just turning up at a station with sufficient time to check the information screens and make your way to whichever platform your train is shown?

While I think the idea suggested is a silly one just as you do, this statement is also silly. Some of us would still like to attempt to make our connections when the first train is delayed, even if you’re in no great hurry.

 

[12LDA28C]

While I think the idea suggested is a silly one just as you do, this statement is also silly. Some of us would still like to attempt to make our connections when the first train is delayed, even if you’re in no great hurry.

In which case it would probably be quicker to use one of the myriad train information apps such as Railboard etc to find which platform your connection is departing from prior to arrival.

 

[IanXC]

While I think the idea suggested is a silly one just as you do, this statement is also silly. Some of us would still like to attempt to make our connections when the first train is delayed, even if you’re in no great hurry.

Courageous! If your connection isn't yet at platform, then the platform RTT (and the working timetable) states is almost always the one it was planned to use - theres a whole myriad of reasons why it might have been amended.

 

[Tom]

the platform RTT (and the working timetable) states is almost always the one it was planned to use

Apart from on the GEML, parts of the WAML and soon the entire SWML.

(And quite possibly soon too a TOC covering a vast swathe of land...)

 

[IanXC]

Apart from on the GEML, parts of the WAML and soon the entire SWML.

(And quite possibly soon too a TOC covering a vast swathe of land...)

Oh you've got a bit further than last time I looked! That said even then that only adds advance information where ARS routes are set doesn't it? Station CIS fed from Darwin can be amended many, many hours in advance.

 

[Tom]

I'd say it's more signaller intervention (whether that be automated by ARS or not is a different matter!) but essentially yes... but in some cases that's faster than the station and Darwin. So swings and roundabouts.

If the thing with the TOC comes off, then it'll be similar to Darwin in that respect. That should open some floodgates in that area, rather like ScotRail and train allocations...