• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

The Great Britain Rail Timetable.What do you think of it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

S&CLER

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
785
Location
southport
Barry Doe in the latest RAIL, which just arrived today, gives a link (www.fabdigital.uk/gbrtv1) to a new publication, digital only for now, which aims to provide a national rail timetable in a clearer format than NR's production. I have checked table 101, Manchester-Southport, and found it very much clearer than Northern's pamphlet. Indeed, I have printed it out at 2 pages per sheet and printed on both sides, using 8 sheets of A4 paper - very convenient and still legible. I urge everyone to have a look and send feedback to the designers.

The tables also give train reporting numbers at the head of each column, and fuller information on connections than the NR book/file.
The table numbering is anti-clockwise from London as before, but differs from NR, and not all tables include the same stations as in the NR book.

My only regret is that it did not go the whole hog and adopt UIC rules for table numbering, with each main line being given a number such as 100,200, 300 etc. and related groups of lines being fitted into numerical sets of ten. I once worked this out for Britain after being impressed with the ease of reference of the old DB timetable, which worked in this way. It was a fascinating exercise (begun to while away the time in the departure lounge at Düsseldorf airport). The BR radial system lent itself to the idea, so that 100-199 was the SE, 200-299 the South Central, 300-399 the SW, 400-499 the Western, 500-599 the WCML, 600-699 the Midland , 700-799 the ECML, 800-899 the Great Eastern and 900-999 Scotland; the 2-digit numbers 10-99 were available for long distance summaries, especially of some cross-country routes. Tables 1- 9 could have been used for international trains via HS1. It all seemed much more logical than what we have now.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Looks good, station banks match the through services much better than the NR version (eg Table 77, North Wales).
Cleaner because it's only May-Sept, so the many changes Sept-Dec are excluded (wavy lines in the May-Dec NR version).
However, it still doesn't do connections - BR/NR used to do this, but recent issues do not.
Could do with major stations being shown in bold.
 

S&CLER

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
785
Location
southport
I sent my feedback to the address given, [email protected], but my message was returned with a note saying that I was not on a list of approved senders. I advised Barry Doe of this, and he got in touch with them; it is a glitch somewhere, which will be corrected as the man behind the timetable, Brian Burkinshaw, is eager to have feedback.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
I had a quick look through a local line's PDF, and yeah it's not bad. It's been some time since I looked at an actual timetable, I must say, so it was almost like a blast from the past, such is my reliance on Real Time Trains and TOC apps these days!

Certainly, one of my most immediate reactions to tapping the link provided was that it was an assault on the senses. I generally use Dark Mode, and that bright white background with a long list of .pdf links was blinding! No spaces between each link was not appreciated either, that made it more frustrating to browse through.

I didn't spend long looking at table 74, Birmingham to Hereford, but I can't say I noted any obvious improvements this made to the standard timetable :s Soon as I loaded it, I noted the second train on the first page allegedly carries First Class. Good luck finding that on WMR around here...

I'd look at others, or indeed at my local one in more detail, but based on what I've seen I can't be bothered. If this is meant to be an improved timetable presentation, then I fail to see how that's meant to be. The biggest local difference to the timetables I'm used to? Including headcodes, yeah that's really exciting and helpful...:rolleyes:
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,940
Location
East Anglia
Just a quick glance but certainly a lot clearer. Got rid of all the previous day nonsense at the start of each table where trains started before midnight. Assume the cut off time is now around 02.00 instead. No more ‘at these minutes past each hour’ but guess some enthusiasts will love the headcodes (in fact the pre-amble says it is aimed at enthusiasts) although just how useful that is the average Joe is a long debate.
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,757
Location
Wilmslow
I like the headcodes and I like the use of colours for dated trains. I don't care about table numbering at all, even though I started buying the GBTT when it came out in 1974 (Saint Pancras was always a good place to go, day out in London, buy timetable there and visit Collector's Corner before going home!) so I'm well accustomed to the old numbering scheme.
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,256
Location
Grimsby
I like this format, often I find the East Midlands Trains/Railway timetable for Cleethorpes to Leicester confusing, but this is a little clearer.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I like this, it's very clear to use plus it has both headcodes and station codes.
 

CW2

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2020
Messages
1,922
Location
Crewe
I took a look at Table 65. At first I was a bit put out that the xx43 departures from Euston via West Midlands to North West / Scotland were not shown in time order of departure from Euston. Then I thought a little more, and wondered how important this was. My orderly logical mind likes to see the trains in time order of departure from Euston, but for planning a journey it's not strictly necessary. What does anybody else think?
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
11,648
Talking of Table 65, for how long have TPE services between Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester via the WCML, been shunted into a separate Table 100?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,434
Location
Yorkshire
I like it.
I took a look at Table 65. At first I was a bit put out that the xx43 departures from Euston via West Midlands to North West / Scotland were not shown in time order of departure from Euston. Then I thought a little more, and wondered how important this was. My orderly logical mind likes to see the trains in time order of departure from Euston, but for planning a journey it's not strictly necessary. What does anybody else think?
I'd like to see these trains shown as overtaken, as already shown for the 1035 from Euston on page 2 of Table 65.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
Talking of Table 65, for how long have TPE services between Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester via the WCML, been shunted into a separate Table 100?
It's a new publication, and the layout of tables varies considerably from the GBTT.

Some first reactions:
The format of the train columns is clear - the station column is less successful: I would like a distinction between stations that are in the "core" of the table (between which the whole service is shown) and others.

Table 77 (GBTT81) is an example - it includes principal stations Leeds-Rochdale-Manchester (through Chester trains) Birmingham/Cardiff-Chester (all trains at Chester), the Conwy Valley (principal stations), etc.

OTOH, Table 54 (GBTT 48/49) works very well, showing the whole service on Peterborough-Ely from end to endend including the GA Ipswich trains.

And at least it has been proofread, unlike the GBTT!
 

181

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2013
Messages
801
I've had a quick look, and my impression is quite favourable. I've not much used NR's pdf version, and so can't really compare them, because I was still using the printed one until Covid, and for the reduced number of journeys I've made since then I've felt that timetables have been so volatile that it's been best to look at a combination of TOCs' own pdfs and the NRE journey planner. But this is encouraging:

And at least it has been proofread, unlike the GBTT!

After 40 years of using the GBTT it seems odd to me that many of the table numbers are similar to but not quite the same as those that I'm used to, and that the 'Mondays to Fridays' header is in the white-on-black style that's always meant 'Saturdays', but I expect I could get used to those.

The format of the train columns is clear - the station column is less successful: I would like a distinction between stations that are in the "core" of the table (between which the whole service is shown) and others.
An indication of which table(s) to look at for the full service would be useful.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I am inordinately happy at the inclusion of the three-letter codes for each station.
 

TommyJ

Member
Joined
23 Sep 2014
Messages
49
I think this is brilliant. I only wish it also showed mileages for each table though.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
An indication of which table(s) to look at for the full service would be useful.

Agreed. Perhaps such information could be indicated on maps/diagrams which are completely missing from this otherwise very decent effort. Especially as some stations are listed as appearing on multiple tables despite being wayside stations on a relatively simple route, eg East Didsbury on no fewer than 7 tables!
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Looks usable, at first glance!

If it existed in printed form, I might buy one once services have settled down post-pandemic and I'm back to normal levels of moving around.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,598
Location
Somerset
At first glance, looks excellent.
Following on from the comment about the split table 65/100, I note that while VT trains from London serving relevant stations appear on table 100, the reverse does not apply. There is, however, no note on table 65 referring to "further trains available on table 100". Feel it is important that for all stretches of line where there is a significant timetable overlap, one of the tables (at least) should be a "line of route" table showing all services, with a note in the other table(s) referring the user to that one (in this case it would be "See table 100 for full details of all trains between Preston and Glasgow/Edinburgh"). If this would make for a table that is too unwieldy (Clapham Junction to either Waterloo or Victoria being an obvious example) then a note such as "for further trains between x and y see tables a, b and c"
Got very confused by the table numbering - come back tables 26 and 51, all is forgiven - but the numbering in the GBTT wasn't fixed in stone either. Maybe UIC format would be better (as well as giving more opportunity to leave gaps to accommodate changes without major renumbering)
 

MichaelAMW

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Messages
1,011
I like it, based on a brief glance. What appears to be better, compared with the GBTT that has got increasingly worse at this over the years, is that ALL trains between two locations seem to be shown on at least one table. I have noticed, when trying to plan some journeys, that you're flicking between pages unnecessarily in the GBTT. I can't remember where I was checking now but it was somewhere with multiple TOCs, such as Peterborough-Ely or Derby-Nottingham.

Here's the acid test: Would you pay for it, say a tenner a year if it's kept updated?
 
Last edited:
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
442
Location
Wigan
I took a look at Table 65. At first I was a bit put out that the xx43 departures from Euston via West Midlands to North West / Scotland were not shown in time order of departure from Euston. Then I thought a little more, and wondered how important this was. My orderly logical mind likes to see the trains in time order of departure from Euston, but for planning a journey it's not strictly necessary. What does anybody else think?
I've got to admit, as a timetable fan, I found this odd, too - but it's also something I've never managed to display correctly in my, much less professional, homemade attempts (http://www.railwaydata.co.uk/timetables/May21/timetable.php?table=2).
For me personally, the only time it'd be an issue, would be if you wanted to leave at a specific time (say leaving London after 18:30), then it'd require a bit of to and froing, but as you say, is that really a noteworthy issue?
Either way, it's great to see these new tables. They certainly appear much better produced than the current NRT.
 

D6975

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
2,864
Location
Bristol
Like:
Station codes
Headcodes

Dislike:
Certain services still missing from where they ought to appear
eg 05:10 BRI-PAD not in T125
ps it's not in T135 either.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
I find it interesting that on the one hand the compiler decided to change table numbers in certain places, but on the other hand stuck with the (odd-looking to the public) TOC codes (e.g. GR for LNER, LE for Greater Anglia). (Yes, there are good reasons why those codes are what they are).
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
I find it interesting that on the one hand the compiler decided to change table numbers in certain places, but on the other hand stuck with the (odd-looking to the public) TOC codes (e.g. GR for LNER, LE for Greater Anglia). (Yes, there are good reasons why those codes are what they are).
Because the table numbers are arbitrary but the TOC two-letter designators are allocated officially and have to be consistent with other data sources?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Got very confused by the table numbering - come back tables 26 and 51, all is forgiven - but the numbering in the GBTT wasn't fixed in stone either. Maybe UIC format would be better (as well as giving more opportunity to leave gaps to accommodate changes without major renumbering)
I still haven't got over Table 50 not being London Euston-Crewe, and Table 51 being Crewe-Carlisle. ;)
This was the format of the LMR timetable, and going right back to LMS days.
And including a host of connectional detail to all points off the main line.
 

totally

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2012
Messages
58
This looks really good, so clearly presented with a sharp look. I am most impressed. Like others I am a little confused by the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh Service becoming table 100, I cannot see why.

Having look through a number of tables relevant to me I see that in the 13th September onward timetable for Table 65 the 0530 Blackpool (North)- London (Euston) (M-F) is now shown as terminating at Crewe. This train has not run since the start of the first lockdown but it used to join at Crewe with the service from Holyhead and proceed to Euston. I assume it still does and this is an error. Can anybody shed any light on that?
 

StephenHunter

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
2,118
Location
London
Because the table numbers are arbitrary but the TOC two-letter designators are allocated officially and have to be consistent with other data sources?
They should be updated. Especially once we move to the 'brave new world' of GBR.
 

SargeNpton

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
1,308
This looks really good, so clearly presented with a sharp look. I am most impressed. Like others I am a little confused by the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh Service becoming table 100, I cannot see why.

Having look through a number of tables relevant to me I see that in the 13th September onward timetable for Table 65 the 0530 Blackpool (North)- London (Euston) (M-F) is now shown as terminating at Crewe. This train has not run since the start of the first lockdown but it used to join at Crewe with the service from Holyhead and proceed to Euston. I assume it still does and this is an error. Can anybody shed any light on that?
Probably a source data error, with the relevant association record to link the two portions not having been published.
 

S&CLER

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
785
Location
southport
I still haven't got over Table 50 not being London Euston-Crewe, and Table 51 being Crewe-Carlisle. ;)
This was the format of the LMR timetable, and going right back to LMS days.
And including a host of connectional detail to all points off the main line.
I've just had a reply from Brian Burkinshaw, the designer of the GBRT, in which he says that he felt the old numbering had stood the test of time since 1974, when the all-line book first appeared, but that tables weren't being reconstructed or renumbered to reflect new service patterns in recent years. He adds that he decided against a wholesale renumbering in this first version on the grounds that it would annoy the "dinosaurs" who can't get their heads round the idea that table numbers are not set in stone, e.g. that table 26 doesn't need to be the ECML for evermore. He felt that negative feedback would have outweighed positive if he had made such a radical change right at the outset. And so he went for a compromise, retaining the anti-clockwise radial order and most of the old numbers, reconstructing and renumbering where necessary.

I agree about the lack of connectional detail in modern tables; as far as I can see the new GBRT adds many connecting trains in ordinary type if only in summary form, e.g. Kirkby to Liverpool Central in table 101, but it nowhere uses the old system of inserting connections in italics. I haven't counted the number of lines in any of the longest tables to see what the maximum possible table length on a page is, but it seems that some of them could include a few more connections without sacrificing clarity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top