glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
I attended a meeting at the ORR last week and whilst there had the oppourtunity to inspect the Public Register Index. The PRI holds the first two copies of the National Routeing Guide from 1996 and 1997 and it was very interesting to chart the guide's fruition and see how far we have moved from those originals to the online editions we have now.
N.B. some of the documents below are up to 5MB and may take 30 seconds to load in browser.
The first document I came across was a 1996 letter from Iryna Terlecky (Director of Licensing and Consumer Protection at the ORR) to Phillip Benham (Assistant Director at ATOC). The letter outlined the safeguards that the Rail Regulator believed were necessary for implementation, before approval for the initial guide would be authorised. Made for very interesting reading, considering that many of these safeguards seem to of gone by the wayside.
(http://*******.com/krl527)
(http://*******.com/ksokmx)
Next I moved onto the guides themselves, they included one copy of the 1996 guide held in the ringbinder format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_Routeing_Guide.jpg) and three copies of the 1997 guide, one was in the format above; the second was in an A5 wire-bound format obviously intended for carrying around, similar to that seen here (http://www.jsbusinessproducts.com/images/Receipts/Wire_Receipt_Books.jpg) but much thicker; the last was a black and white photocopy clipped together.
When looking at the guides I was interested in their format compared to the current editions and was suitably impressed by the examples pages at the back, especially example four.
(http://*******.com/mrsao3)
(http://*******.com/lvxzhr)
(http://*******.com/koppos)
(http://*******.com/m6vwnx)
These examples should also help later on in this post, because the formatting of the paper guides, was slightly different to that of the current electronic guides.
The first notable point that struck me was the maps themselves. In the old paper guides, not only was there a diagrammatic version of the map, as we are used to currently, but also a geographical version to put this into context. Various easements were also listed on the maps themselves and points to be noted when using that specific map. The best example of this is map ZZ, used for Sleeper journeys.
(http://*******.com/mt7u7j)
I highlighted a couple of weeks ago that the current map ZZ, used in the current electronic guide, made no reference to the fact the map was intended for use only by sleeper passengers, the map ZZ in the paper guide, did exactly this.
Next came comparing some contentious routeing issues that have been encountered over the years. The infamous example of Newcastle to Carlisle, which allowed permitted routes for travel via Leeds and Manchester, did not originate in these copies of the guide. Back in 96/97 the only route was the direct route on map LM. I think the error originated in a later version (probably the online version) where map LM was removed and replaced by a series of new maps. The set of new maps were then copied and pasted in every place where map LM previously was, not taking into context what this meant for journeys such as Newcastle to Carlisle (which only used a small portion of map LM).
(http://*******.com/kjm33f)
(http://*******.com/mhs852)
Following on the same theme, was the issue that Clive Feather raised late on in his Amazing Routing Questions where in response to:
An example of this was Beckenham Junction to Reading route Not London. When checked in the 96 and 97 guides it was plain to see that, as stated in the Amazing Routeing Question, the only routes listed were VIA LONDON.
(http://*******.com/m8zdsp)
The last example was a little more recent, that being the Wrexham and Shropshire route Birmingham saga. I was interested to note that map GC in those days did not list the Birmingham Group as a routeing point but rather listed the specific Birmingham stations: New Street, Snow Hill and Moor Street. This was unique to map GC within the guide and the Birmingham Group was listed under all other maps. If this had continued, with regard to the maps listed in the current electronic routeing guide, the issue of whether the services via Aston were permitted, would never have clouded the issue and perhaps an earlier resolution would have occured.
(http://*******.com/maedwn)
The final note I made when reading through the guides, was the easements page. In the paper editions not only were the easements given but also a reason why the easement was put in place, something useful that has again gone by the wayside.
(http://*******.com/nvzqyf)
So my conclusions were:
I feel that obviously having an electronic issue was a step towards greater access to the guide, but this should not have been at the expense of the superior, paper edition of the guide.
Any thoughts?...
N.B. some of the documents below are up to 5MB and may take 30 seconds to load in browser.
The first document I came across was a 1996 letter from Iryna Terlecky (Director of Licensing and Consumer Protection at the ORR) to Phillip Benham (Assistant Director at ATOC). The letter outlined the safeguards that the Rail Regulator believed were necessary for implementation, before approval for the initial guide would be authorised. Made for very interesting reading, considering that many of these safeguards seem to of gone by the wayside.
(http://*******.com/krl527)
(http://*******.com/ksokmx)
Next I moved onto the guides themselves, they included one copy of the 1996 guide held in the ringbinder format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_Routeing_Guide.jpg) and three copies of the 1997 guide, one was in the format above; the second was in an A5 wire-bound format obviously intended for carrying around, similar to that seen here (http://www.jsbusinessproducts.com/images/Receipts/Wire_Receipt_Books.jpg) but much thicker; the last was a black and white photocopy clipped together.
When looking at the guides I was interested in their format compared to the current editions and was suitably impressed by the examples pages at the back, especially example four.
(http://*******.com/mrsao3)
(http://*******.com/lvxzhr)
(http://*******.com/koppos)
(http://*******.com/m6vwnx)
These examples should also help later on in this post, because the formatting of the paper guides, was slightly different to that of the current electronic guides.
The first notable point that struck me was the maps themselves. In the old paper guides, not only was there a diagrammatic version of the map, as we are used to currently, but also a geographical version to put this into context. Various easements were also listed on the maps themselves and points to be noted when using that specific map. The best example of this is map ZZ, used for Sleeper journeys.
(http://*******.com/mt7u7j)
I highlighted a couple of weeks ago that the current map ZZ, used in the current electronic guide, made no reference to the fact the map was intended for use only by sleeper passengers, the map ZZ in the paper guide, did exactly this.
Next came comparing some contentious routeing issues that have been encountered over the years. The infamous example of Newcastle to Carlisle, which allowed permitted routes for travel via Leeds and Manchester, did not originate in these copies of the guide. Back in 96/97 the only route was the direct route on map LM. I think the error originated in a later version (probably the online version) where map LM was removed and replaced by a series of new maps. The set of new maps were then copied and pasted in every place where map LM previously was, not taking into context what this meant for journeys such as Newcastle to Carlisle (which only used a small portion of map LM).
(http://*******.com/kjm33f)
(http://*******.com/mhs852)
Following on the same theme, was the issue that Clive Feather raised late on in his Amazing Routing Questions where in response to:
ATOC's response (which defied all logic) was:
An example of this was Beckenham Junction to Reading route Not London. When checked in the 96 and 97 guides it was plain to see that, as stated in the Amazing Routeing Question, the only routes listed were VIA LONDON.
(http://*******.com/m8zdsp)
The last example was a little more recent, that being the Wrexham and Shropshire route Birmingham saga. I was interested to note that map GC in those days did not list the Birmingham Group as a routeing point but rather listed the specific Birmingham stations: New Street, Snow Hill and Moor Street. This was unique to map GC within the guide and the Birmingham Group was listed under all other maps. If this had continued, with regard to the maps listed in the current electronic routeing guide, the issue of whether the services via Aston were permitted, would never have clouded the issue and perhaps an earlier resolution would have occured.
(http://*******.com/maedwn)
The final note I made when reading through the guides, was the easements page. In the paper editions not only were the easements given but also a reason why the easement was put in place, something useful that has again gone by the wayside.
(http://*******.com/nvzqyf)
So my conclusions were:
- that the paper guides were much easier to use than the current electronic guide. This includes the grid system used in checking which maps to use, the maps themselves and examples page listed within the guide.
- the A5 ringbound format would have been perfect for train managers to carry around with them to check contentious routeing issues. Somebody trained to do so could look up a routeing guide issue in between one and two minutes. There is currently no onboard system for train managers to view the routeing guide and usually must accept tickets on face value. This is similar to the situation before the routeing guide existed when the definition of which routes were permitted was any "reasonable route", decided by the train manager often leading to conflict.
I feel that obviously having an electronic issue was a step towards greater access to the guide, but this should not have been at the expense of the superior, paper edition of the guide.
Any thoughts?...
Last edited: