Should the rail industry learn from the aviation industry in terms of making it easier to identify the booked service?

[JaJaWa]

Moderator note: Split from

Platform change led to £100 extra ticket!

A relative travelling Hereford to Aberdeen today on a £62 ticket had platform change at Birmingham - and revised platform had 2 trains to Edinburgh ! He took the wrong one( much slower and would miss connection To Aberdeen in Edinburgh )- and was advised to change at Crewe to faster one to...

www.railforums.co.uk

I suspect the OP just went and boarded the train with Edinburgh on it without checking anything else, a very common (expensive) Advance ticket error.

They'd not do that at an airport.

There is - the combination of departure time and destination, which is shown on the platform displays.

I was very close to boarding the wrong Hong Kong to Taipei flight. There were two with the same destination and departure time. I realised as I was in the queue to board that the flight number didn't match though.

Like airlines, every other railway in the world (?) issuing Advance tickets shows the train number on the ticket and on the departure screens. Expecting people to rely on the departure time (especially when trains may be delayed) is ridiculous.

 

[221129]

I was very close to boarding the wrong Hong Kong to Taipei flight.

Except you won't have been able to board though so irrelevant really.

 

[Watershed]

Expecting people to rely on the departure time (especially when trains may be delayed) is ridiculous.

It's perhaps a little backwards, but it's hardly ridiculous. The booked depature time is always the reference used when referring to a train, even when it's delayed. Hence why you are told "the 16:00 from A to B is now expected at 16:15", not "the next service to B is the 16:15".

 

[whoosh]

Except you won't have been able to board though so irrelevant really.

You might end up missing your intended flight though, so it is relevant in that confusion can arise.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I was on a flight from Stockholm to The Aland Islands when the Stewardess started her safety speech by welcoming us on board the flight to the Aland Islands. At which point someone in a business suit, who'd been reading a newspaper, jumped up and said something in Swedish. The Stewardess (only one, it was a small propeller plane), opened the cockpit door and spoke to the Captain.
Moments later, port engines throttled back, door opened and passenger taken away.
Admittedly this is the only time I've known someone be on the wrong plane.
I've been on the wrong train a few times

 

[miami]

Easy enough to get on the wrong flight

 

[Spamcan81]

I suspect the OP just went and boarded the train with Edinburgh on it without checking anything else, a very common (expensive) Advance ticket error.

They'd not do that at an airport.

There would be gateline staff and cabin crew to ensure they didn't get on the wrong plane.

 

[BluePenguin]

Easy enough to get on the wrong flight

Wow, how times have changed!

 

[DanNCL]

Except you won't have been able to board though so irrelevant really.

There would be gateline staff and cabin crew to ensure they didn't get on the wrong plane.

It does still happen - I've been boarded onto the wrong flight in recent years. I was flying to Newcastle from Southampton, both the Newcastle and Belfast flights were boarding from the same gate, and once my boarding pass had been checked by staff I was directed to the wrong plane, only realised what had happened when the announcement on the aircraft welcomed me onboard the flight to Belfast! So this does still happen at airports, in my case the issue was staff error as I'd gone to the correct gate, and been forwarded by staff from the gate onto the wrong flight - this same issue can easily occur on the railway too with staff directing people to the wrong train when asked which one the passenger needs to board. If this is what has happened for the OP's relative then it should be the railway's responsibility to get them to Aberdeen from the wrong train without extra charge, likewise it would have been Flybe's responsibility to get me back to Newcastle from Belfast had it not been realised I'd been put on the wrong flight early enough for me to get off and be put onto the correct aircraft.

I think we need to know if/where staff were involved in the journey of the OP's relative, and exactly what actions were taken by the staff in question about this, to establish if this could possibly be down to staff error rather than passenger error - it is not unreasonable to expect to be boarding the correct train if a member of staff tells you immediately before boarding that it's the right train, and the company should be to blame for such cases.

 

[221129]

I think we need to know if/where staff were involved in the journey of the OP's relative, and exactly what actions were taken by the staff in question about this, to establish if this could possibly be down to staff error rather than passenger error - it is not unreasonable to expect to be boarding the correct train if a member of staff tells you immediately before boarding that it's the right train, and the company should be to blame for such cases.

They've already said there were no staff at BHM to ask (unlikely but I doubt we will find out the truth now)

 

[DanNCL]

They've already said there were no staff at BHM to ask (unlikely but I doubt we will find out the truth now)

I agree, I'm not a regular user of New Street but all of the times I've used it there have been staff around on all of the platforms, I struggle to believe there weren't any staff around at all. Not easily visible on the other hand, entirely possible, but in those cases if you really need to speak to a member of staff you'll go out of your way to find one.

 

[WesternLancer]

I was very close to boarding the wrong Hong Kong to Taipei flight. There were two with the same destination and departure time. I realised as I was in the queue to board that the flight number didn't match though.

Like airlines, every other railway in the world (?) issuing Advance tickets shows the train number on the ticket and on the departure screens. Expecting people to rely on the departure time (especially when trains may be delayed) is ridiculous.

Yes, but of course train numbers are not a thing in the UK really, not as far as the general public are concerned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might end up missing your intended flight though, so it is relevant in that confusion can arise.

I am in favour of flight numbers for trains, but they can offer their own confusion. The easyJet flight us regulars used to talk of as the "twenty fifty one" didn't depart at 8:51pm, but was flight EZY2051 which actually went at 0625.

Except you won't have been able to board though so irrelevant really.

There was a news article today that someone did actually manage to do that, and I have done it due to an airport mix up (the displays and ground crew didn't agree with the on board crew about where the flight was going, shall we say). The problem as ever is humans. The boarding pass rejects so they assume it's just the system being rubbish and make a manual note of the seat number and wave you on anyway. About 20 people had actually boarded before they realised.

 

[miklcct]

Yes, but of course train numbers are not a thing in the UK really, not as far as the general public are concerned.

Therefore the trains in Great Britain is the hardest for me to use in all the developed countries I have visited (I can't comment for Northern Ireland though as I have never been there).

In basically every other developed countries in the world as long as I get onto the train (or flight / bus / anything) with the right number and destination I can be sure that I am on the right train.

I am in favour of flight numbers for trains, but they can offer their own confusion. The easyJet flight us regulars used to talk of as the "twenty fifty one" didn't depart at 8:51pm, but was flight EZY2051 which actually went at 0625.

The phrase "easyJet twenty fifty one" is very clear - U2 2051. No chance for confusion. I just check the display in the airport which says "U2 2051" with the correct destination and that's it. Please don't tell me that there can be multiple U2 2051 flights flying to the same destination with different stop patterns mixed in the same time period.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The phrase "easyJet twenty fifty one" is very clear - U2 2051. No chance for confusion.

Lolwut. People are expected to know that "U2" means Easyjet, but it's somehow completely unreasonable for them to look at departure screens on a station platform to see if this is the train they'd booked onto?

 

[XAM2175]

Lolwut. People are expected to know that "U2" means Easyjet, but it's somehow completely unreasonable for them to look at departure screens on a station platform to see if this is the train they'd booked onto?

No, they're not expected to know that. The point of the flight number is that it's an additional piece of information that helps the passenger's wayfinding, and it's a particularly strong one because it's unique to one flight and one flight only on any given day. It could be "U2 2051" or "BA 503" or "LH 74" or "QF 9", the primary purpose is the same. The fact that the passenger can establish the identity of the airline from it is just a bonus.

I'll use an example for the railways similar to one I've used here before. The attached image is from DB's journey planner showing a proposed itinerary for a trip from Hamburg to Berlin this coming Tuesday. It shows a departure from Hamburg Hbf at 10:35 (am) and an arrival at Berlin Hbf (low-level) at 12:24 (am). The train number is shown as "ICE 509", and under "Further information" is shown "Intercity-Express, Direction: München Hbf" and a few more notes that aren't relevant.

The train number "ICE 509" is the key, because it refers to that train and that train only, and it follows that train for the entirety of its journey. It's shown here in the journey planner. It'll be shown on the final itinerary, and on the seat reservation if one is purchased, and on the summary boards on the station concourse, and on the displays on the platform, and on the train's external displays, and also on the train's internal displays. It will be mentioned in the announcements in the station and aboard the train, in both German and English.

Yes, the passenger still needs to know that it departs from Hamburg at 10:35, and it certainly doesn't hurt for them to know that the final destination is München because it will be appearing as the 10:35 to München - but the train number is a valuable piece of confirmatory information because the train is still ICE 509 even if it's re-timed. It's still ICE 509 if it's running late, or diverted, or if it's terminated short at Leipzig or Erfurt or Nürnberg, and it's still ICE 509 in the event that there's another 10:35 to München departing from Hamburg that day. And all the way down the line the train is still ICE 509, even when it's become the 12:30 from Berlin and the 13:48 from Leipzig Hbf and the 14:31 from Erfurt Hbf and the 15:55 from Nürnberg Hbf, all the way through to when it's become the 17:07 arrival at München Hbf.

And on top of all of this, for the more-informed traveller using a flexible ticket, having the service category "ICE" in the train number allows an easy determination of whether or not their ticket is valid - as it will be marked as either being valid or not valid for ICE services.

I really do struggle to see why the concept is viewed as being so problematic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lolwut. People are expected to know that "U2" means Easyjet, but it's somehow completely unreasonable for them to look at departure screens on a station platform to see if this is the train they'd booked onto?

U2 (I wonder is Stelios a fan?) is not generally used publically. They use the 3 character "charter" identifiers EZY, EZS and another one I forget.

Interestingly Ryanair do use FR (which always sounds like swearing to me ) rather than RYR.

 

[XAM2175]

U2 (I wonder is Stelios a fan?) is not generally used publically. They use the 3 character "charter" identifiers EZY, EZS and another one I forget. Interestingly Ryanair do use FR (which always sounds like swearing to me ) rather than RYR.

They're odd in that respect. The three-character designators are not "charter identifiers", they're issued by the ICAO and are the "behind-the-scenes" ones used by traffic control and for many other regulatory purposes: EZY for the UK operation, EZS for the Swiss certificate, and EJU for the new Vienna-based EU-anchor outfit. As a rule almost all airlines will use the two-character designator issued by IATA in public communications, as that's been the default in passenger-facing systems for decades now.

Not at all relevant to the actual topic, mind

 

[YorkshireBear]

No, they're not expected to know that. The point of the flight number is that it's an additional piece of information that helps the passenger's wayfinding, and it's a particularly strong one because it's unique to one flight and one flight only on any given day. It could be "U2 2051" or "BA 503" or "LH 74" or "QF 9", the primary purpose is the same. The fact that the passenger can establish the identity of the airline from it is just a bonus.

I'll use an example for the railways similar to one I've used here before. The attached image is from DB's journey planner showing a proposed itinerary for a trip from Hamburg to Berlin this coming Tuesday. It shows a departure from Hamburg Hbf at 10:35 (am) and an arrival at Berlin Hbf (low-level) at 12:24 (am). The train number is shown as "ICE 509", and under "Further information" is shown "Intercity-Express, Direction: München Hbf" and a few more notes that aren't relevant.

The train number "ICE 509" is the key, because it refers to that train and that train only, and it follows that train for the entirety of its journey. It's shown here in the journey planner. It'll be shown on the final itinerary, and on the seat reservation if one is purchased, and on the summary boards on the station concourse, and on the displays on the platform, and on the train's external displays, and also on the train's internal displays. It will be mentioned in the announcements in the station and aboard the train, in both German and English.

Yes, the passenger still needs to know that it departs from Hamburg at 10:35, and it certainly doesn't hurt for them to know that the final destination is München because it will be appearing as the 10:35 to München - but the train number is a valuable piece of confirmatory information because the train is still ICE 509 even if it's re-timed. It's still ICE 509 if it's running late, or diverted, or if it's terminated short at Leipzig or Erfurt or Nürnberg, and it's still ICE 509 in the event that there's another 10:35 to München departing from Hamburg that day. And all the way down the line the train is still ICE 509, even when it's become the 12:30 from Berlin and the 13:48 from Leipzig Hbf and the 14:31 from Erfurt Hbf and the 15:55 from Nürnberg Hbf, all the way through to when it's become the 17:07 arrival at München Hbf.

And on top of all of this, for the more-informed traveller using a flexible ticket, having the service category "ICE" in the train number allows an easy determination of whether or not their ticket is valid - as it will be marked as either being valid or not valid for ICE services.

I really do struggle to see why the concept is viewed as being so problematic.

I agree with this. I don't understand how this would be an issue.

I find the numbered train system in Germany very intuitive to use as a non native speaker. Even my wife with no train interest comments on how easy it is to navigate.

 

[lachlan]

Moderator note: Split from

Platform change led to £100 extra ticket!

A relative travelling Hereford to Aberdeen today on a £62 ticket had platform change at Birmingham - and revised platform had 2 trains to Edinburgh ! He took the wrong one( much slower and would miss connection To Aberdeen in Edinburgh )- and was advised to change at Crewe to faster one to...

www.railforums.co.uk

I was very close to boarding the wrong Hong Kong to Taipei flight. There were two with the same destination and departure time. I realised as I was in the queue to board that the flight number didn't match though.

Like airlines, every other railway in the world (?) issuing Advance tickets shows the train number on the ticket and on the departure screens. Expecting people to rely on the departure time (especially when trains may be delayed) is ridiculous.

I have often wondered why we don't have a train code system here as I find it useful for checking which service I'm on in other countries. Something like China's system with a letter first then numbers could avoid the potential confusion with departure times.

However I'd prefer it if we just stopped with the severe penalties for passengers boarding the wrong service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Virgin Trains did attempt to introduce this, which is why 390s and 22xs have a field for it on the door displays. However it was never used in publicity and the 390s now show the headcode on that display instead.

They're odd in that respect. The three-character designators are not "charter identifiers", they're issued by the ICAO and are the "behind-the-scenes" ones used by traffic control and for many other regulatory purposes: EZY for the UK operation, EZS for the Swiss certificate, and EJU for the new Vienna-based EU-anchor outfit. As a rule almost all airlines will use the two-character designator issued by IATA in public communications, as that's been the default in passenger-facing systems for decades now.

I stand corrected, I'm sure I read those designators tended to be used by charter airlines. Learn something new every day

 

[CBlue]

The idea that anyone could be prosecuted for simply boarding the wrong train when they often don't carry identifiers, and especially in times of disruption could be confused with another service on the departure boards is patently ridiculous and certainly makes me less keen on longer distance train travel. Why each service can't have a unique identifier is a good question.

 

[XAM2175]

I stand corrected, I'm sure I read those designators tended to be used by charter airlines. Learn something new every day

In fairness, there are (or at least were) a few charter airlines scattered around that only ever did whole-aircraft charters and thus didn't sell tickets of their own. A number of them didn't bother to apply for IATA designators and so only had ICAO ones, which might be why that association formed.

 

[SargeNpton]

Every train in Britain (or at least every reservable one) has a Retail Service ID that is unique for that day, which has been in use in the background since about 2009 for seat/sleeper reservations. As one of the previous posts said, the Pendolinos and Voyagers are set up to display it.

When the Retail Service ID was being developed the expectation was that it would be should on a passenger's reservation, on timetables and on station/platform displays. Why that was never followed up is something is something that you would have to ask the TOCs.

 

[AM9]

In fairness, there are (or at least were) a few charter airlines scattered around that only ever did whole-aircraft charters and thus didn't sell tickets of their own. A number of them didn't bother to apply for IATA designators and so only had ICAO ones, which might be why that association formed.

Monarch Airlines (now defunct) had an IATA code of ZB for their scheduled services, and used their ICAO code of MON for their charter flights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Every train in Britain (or at least every reservable one) has a Retail Service ID that is unique for that day, which has been in use in the background since about 2009 for seat/sleeper reservations. As one of the previous posts said, the Pendolinos and Voyagers are set up to display it.

When the Retail Service ID was being developed the expectation was that it would be should on a passenger's reservation, on timetables and on station/platform displays. Why that was never followed up is something is something that you would have to ask the TOCs.

Yeah, it was a good idea and a shame it wasn't taken forward. One nice thing about the VT scheme was that it had route numbering, too (the first digit was the route), another thing that makes sense in a Taktfahrplan like the WCML mostly has.

 

[miklcct]

U2 (I wonder is Stelios a fan?) is not generally used publically. They use the 3 character "charter" identifiers EZY, EZS and another one I forget.

Interestingly Ryanair do use FR (which always sounds like swearing to me ) rather than RYR.

It's the 2-letter IATA code which is shown at the airport and used publicly. The 3-character identifiers are the ICAO code which isn't normally used by passengers, but used in aviation control.

 

[Titfield]

easyJet was assigned the two letter code U2 because at the time of application the two letter code EZ had been assigned to another airline in this case Sun Air of Scandinavia.

Loganair was assigned LC not LG because LG was assigned to Luxair of Luxembourg,

Some which may appear illogical are due to airline takeovers / renaming over many years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the 2-letter IATA code which is shown at the airport and used publicly.

Not in easyJet's case.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder the thread title is Should the rail industry learn from the aviation industry in terms of making it easier to identify the booked service?