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

[Taunton]

I still hanker after a wholesale renumbering on UIC lines, using sets of 100 and subsets of 10 to relate tables to areas that are logical in terms of railway geography,

For those with long memories, when the first of the current style of national timetable came out in 1974 John Price, longstanding editor of Cooks Continental Timetable, did a review of it in Modern Railways, and made exactly the same comment!

 

[SargeNpton]

For those with long memories, when the first of the current style of national timetable came out in 1974 John Price, longstanding editor of Cooks Continental Timetable, did a review of it in Modern Railways, and made exactly the same comment!

Was it the case that the table numbering was based around the Divisional boundaries? At the time, most of the train planning took place at Divisional level so it would have made sense to group the table numbers in that way.

 

[CyrusWuff]

One issue with this outsourced version is that it doesn't appear to include mileages, so is no use when undertaking Routeing Guide checks.

 

[pdeaves]

One issue with this outsourced version is that it doesn't appear to include mileages, so is no use when undertaking Routeing Guide checks.

Somewhere there is a statement that mileages are coming later. Meanwhile, the old timetables will remain to allow cross checking to them as required.

 

[Taunton]

One issue with this outsourced version is that it doesn't appear to include mileages, so is no use when undertaking Routeing Guide checks.

That one seems to have come round time and again. The first timetable in the "current" format, the WR way back in 1965, left them out. There was an apology the next year when they were put back in. Then later they were left out again, and reinstated after many comments. If they have been left out now that's the third time of going through this cycle, at least - others might be able to recall even more instances.

 

[Mally66]

Personally I love it, massive improvement visually, addition of head codes and station codes is great, just needs the maps adding for a thumbs up from me. Thanks for all of your hard work BrianB

 

[splashoutradio]

I still hanker after a wholesale renumbering on UIC lines, using sets of 100 and subsets of 10 to relate tables to areas that are logical in terms of railway geography, but you can't have everything at once, and maps were certainly more urgent.
For the benefit of anyone who may be interested, here is my idea of what a UIC-style renumbering might look like.

Excellent work! You've clearly put a lot of effort into that.

When drafting the table numbers for the Railway Data timetables, a vaguely similar method was adopted. Tables 1-19 were long distance timetables, 20 - 49 Scotland, further broken down into localities (e.g. 20-24 Highlands, etc.) The issue I found, and I suspect Fabrik may have found, too, is that everyone has a different opinion of what makes the ideal numbering system. Some prefer a total rewrite, some stick steadfast to the old NRT numbers. I think Fabrik's numbering system is an effective half way - many tables simplified and improved whilst largely maintaining the traditional numbering system.

It's excellent news that the NRT is now in the hands of people that care about the timetable and its accuracy - long may it continue.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Other than nostalgia, does the numbering of tables really matter?

If the table number for a specific service changed constantly edition by edition then, yes, it would be a bit annoying. But a once in a decade change?

If the tables were numbered logically geographically but then arranged in the printed book randomly 1, 200, 57, 313, the fact that there was logic to their numbering would pall into insignificance.

Personally, my preferred arrangement would be the main-line followed by it's branches. Suburban services by terminus, arranged clockwise.

I suspect BrianB has spent a considerable amount of his professional life considering such matters . As a user, I too am grateful that production has been a) continued and b) been put into the hands of people who care about the end product.

I make my comments in the full knowledge that this is a rail enthusiasts forum where neat, logical, sequential numbering is really, really essential!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just checking the WCML tables (Table 65/66/67 etc).
Table 65 seems to be a listing of "inter-city" (VT) services only, and misses the xx46 LM services (which are faster to Crewe than the xx43 VT services via Birmingham).
Table 66 (London-Trent Valley-Crewe) is the reverse - it includes the xx46 LM services, but not the xx43 VTs.
VT services have to make stops in the Trent Valley to be in this table.

Table 65 also excludes TPE and Northern services north of Wigan/Preston.
So as well as not showing connections, it does not represent the totality of services on the WCML.
Are the TPE services north of Preston not "intercity" - same stops/speeds as VT?
Table 65 shows the (currently very few) through services from London to Chester/Holyhead - but it doesn't show the VT connections from Crewe.
So Table 65 isn't even the full Avanti service.

And it's not a criticism of Fabrik, but isn't it time NR revised the operator codes?
Table after table refers to the outdated codes of long-gone operators (eg on the WCML: VT/LM/AW).

 

[XAM2175]

And it's not a criticism of Fabrik, but isn't it time NR revised the operator codes?
Table after table refers to the outdated codes of long-gone operators (eg on the WCML: VT/LM/AW).

They have to be consistent through all the various industry systems, so it would be a lot of bother for no real benefit - especially when most passengers will never encounter them.

 

[su31]

Will a link to the December 2021 be available to view online please?

 

[splashoutradio]

Will a link to the December 2021 be available to view online please?

If you're referring to the new National Rail Timetable created by Fabrik, individual PDFs (or the whole lot as a zip file) are can be downloaded from the Network Rail website, here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/the-timetable/electronic-national-rail-timetable/

 

[su31]

If you're referring to the new National Rail Timetable created by Fabrik, individual PDFs (or the whole lot as a zip file) are can be downloaded from the Network Rail website, here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/the-timetable/electronic-national-rail-timetable/

Thank you for the link

 

[Table 52]

Was it the case that the table numbering was based around the Divisional boundaries? At the time, most of the train planning took place at Divisional level so it would have made sense to group the table numbers in that way.

I remember hearing once that the numbering is based on the London Terminals. You start from Fenchurch Street and go anti clockwise around London.

 

[30907]

I remember hearing once that the numbering is based on the London Terminals. You start from Fenchurch Street and go anti clockwise around London.

yes, with Scotland separate...

 

[AlbertBeale]

yes, with Scotland separate...

I remember hearing once that the numbering is based on the London Terminals. You start from Fenchurch Street and go anti clockwise around London.

Same as A road numbering, effectively.

 

[daodao]

Same as A road numbering, effectively.

Road numbering (A and B roads) goes clockwise round London, starting with the Great North Road (A1). Scotland is handled separately. based on the A7/A8/A9 radiating from Edinburgh, apart from the Borders and East Lothian east of the A7, where the English road numbering system is extended either side of the A1 as far as Edinburgh. Historically of course, this was Anglo-Saxon territory, when Cumberland (now in England) was part of Celtic Strathclyde.

On topic, the new GB rail timetable pdfs (Dec 2021) available from the Network Rail website, use clearer fonts, but lack mileages, and there are no maps.

However, the worst feature is unnecessary agglomeration of multiple different lines into a single table. This makes many of the timetables excessively large and difficult to read, particularly on a computer screen, yet alone on a tablet or iphone. One example, and by no means the worst, is table 41, which shows the majority of remaining NE England local services. In this case, it would be clearer and easier to read, if the Bishop Auckland-Saltburn and Newcastle-Middlesbrough-Whitby lines were shown separately. The only overlapping section of route is Thornaby-Middlesbrough, and it would be simpler in this instance just to state at the bottom of the table for each route "Other services between Thornaby and Middlesbrough are shown in tables xxx and yyy" (or have a summary table for all trains between these 2 stations). Another example is inclusion of the separate Kirkby-Wigan and Ormskirk-Preston services in table 83 (Liverpool to Kirkby, Wigan, Ormskirk and Preston).

 

[Ken H]

Hello and thanks to everyone who has commented so far. As the person responsible for this new venture, albeit under the umbrella of my sponsor Fabrik Communications, all and anything you see can be accredited/discredited to me, good or bad. I have been following the comments all week but have refrained from commenting until now in order to see how varied the feedback would be. I knew from the outset that 50% would love it, 50% would hate it, but I am pleased to say the split is more like 80/20 which is encouraging. Let me share the reasoning behind this project, explain the limitations, share the vision, which will hopefully answer many of your comments.

I have recently 'retired' from full time work, a career that takes me back to 1974 as junior clerk in a very grubby Sheffield Parcels Office, through numerous booking offices, travel centres and for the past 20 years in actual timetable 'production', by which I mean editing, compiling and printing, not planning. As a fully signed up anorak I know the National Rail timetable inside out, remember the 1st edition in May 1974 and have used it ever since one way or another. I still play a big part in the ongoing timetable productions for various TOCs so am also a serious rail professional with a strong commercial awareness AND an anorak, 2 hats, and an insufferable combination at times.

So why bother? Well simply to see how difficult it would be to create a GB rail timetable, independent of the NRT; how long it would take, what resources would be needed, would it look good and most importantly could it be accurate as possible. I believe we have achieved most of that 1st goal and proved it can be done. However, as you will all notice, for now it is incomplete - it only has a basic index with no cross-referencing, it has no maps etc etc. This is intentional because the resources to progress to the next level can only be justified if it passes that 1st stage and prove to us there is actually a real demand for it. That means that for now it has to be considered a beta version, a V1, a static timetable, 95% corrrect at the time of issue, and one that will not be updated on an ongoing basis. V2 will happen after considering and incorporating any constructive suggestions for improvement and any data extraction debugging required.

The vision is to progress to a digital platform, one where it can also be interactive, with links to anything and everything, where for example you click a station name and gain access to station information, station accessibility, bus services, live departures etc; click a train ID and see formations, facilities etc. This cannot happen before December 2021 at the earliest, but thereafter it WILL be a live version that can be updated as required. With that in mind, let me now address some of the specifics raised:

Table nos - one thing that appears to be agitating some commentators is the renumbering of some tables. This is deliberate - over the years many tables have failed to be renumbered or reconstructed to take account of changed service patterns, so I have tried to address that where possible and I make no apologies for doing so, although I do accept this is subjective, but there is no reason why a table number or construct has to remain the same for eternity. Using one example, table 18 still thinks it is the GE/GN joint line to East Anglia despite Spalding to March closing in 1983. The splitting of table 65 also appears to be an issue, but in reality what happens only south of Crewe has no bearing on what happens only north of Preston, so why clutter the table with everything in one view? Table 100 to me seems the perfect solution to the WCML north of Preston, with all the Lancasters, Barrows and Windermeres in one place. I am surprised there are no similar comments re my splitting of the ECML into tables 20 and 41. I admit to having struggled with some tables (like the North Wales Coast mainline) which I dont like and where I still havent acheived the right balance, but these are all things that can be looked at going forward.
Mileages - not considered of value for this stage, it may be possible in the future
TOC codes - they are what they are, I have no control over these, LE, GR, all of those are stupid we know, but they are hardwired into the train service database and cannot be overridden and without them you would get no data.
Connections (lack of) - again, this was deliberate due to time constraints. The NRT hasnt had them for a while so this is something that needs careful consideration as to whether they would actually be a benefit or just a visual mess. London connections from the Sheringham table would be nice and neat, but connections out of the ECML or WCML to all points... ?
Data errors - I have no control over when a train is missing from the train service database from the outset. If the omission is glaring and obvious then it can be investigated to see if it is the data extraction parameters that are at fault (me) or the train was never there (NR). Missing associations - the one example quoted at Crewe is entirely my fault, the parameters are not set correctly to capture the join, will be fixed going forward. Incorrect 1st class - it's what is in the train service database and without an army of data editors at disposal things like this will never be spotted. This is down to train planners to get right, we are at their mercy, what goes in is what comes out! I already have code written to be able to 'block' certain properties from certain operators in the future to help with things like this.
Presentation - bold/non bold, indented/not indented, all are subjective and ask 100 people you get 100 different answers, however if there is a recurring comment then it will be given serious consideration.

In conclusion, this is a beta version to generate discussion and feedback, so please keep it coming. If in the end it generates nothing but indifference that we cant say we havent tried.
Thanks for reading,
Brian.

Some comments below Brians post about archiving for future historians. Brian, Please talk to Matthew at Timetable world (timetableworld.com) about making old versions available on his website.
Also, consider making sure your site and the PDF's are archived to Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) - an online archive of electronic stuff, including websites, media, books etc

 

[Shrop]

A couple of points, using my home town of Shrewsbury as an example. It's a shame that Table 64 which includes Telford and Shrewsbury, doesn't have a reference number by those stations, showing that a more detailed timetable is available in Table 75.
Secondly, in Table 76, the arrival and departure time at Shrewsbury is often shown as the same minute. Other posters on this forum, supposedly with rail knowledge, have pointed out to me that doors must be locked for around one minute prior to departure, and if you add that to the time for passengers to get on and off, then surely at bigger stations at least 2 minutes should be shown.
Thirdly, the old timetables used to display rail mileages on the first page of each induvidual timetable. This was an excellent feature and it would be good to see it reintroduced.
But in general, yes a great source of information.

 

[30907]

Now I've had time to scroll through half the tables, a couple of small points strike me:

1. Would it help to have a visual indication of the "core" section of a table, where all trains appear. Eg 077 where the core is Warrington/Crewe-Llandudno/Holyhead plus Helsby-Ellesmere Port. A solid line down the lefthand side of each page?
2. Several tables (eg 090,091 Manchester-Airport/Stockport) are described as "summary" when they include the complete service and all intermediate stations; they would be better labelled as "complete service" if a label is needed.

Edit in the light of post #81: I have fed back to NR as suggested.

 

[BrianB]

As compiler of this timetable, let me clarify a few points. Firstly, it needs to be known that although this started out as an independent product, a vanity project of my own separate from the Network Rail NRT, it has now been commissioned as the de-facto Network Rail publication to be used on their website. For me this is fantastic news as it both validates and pays for all the hard work that has gone into it. Discussions took place about some of the different aspects of the 2 products, including table numbering, mileages and maps, the outcome being this:
NAME
Under NR 'sponsorship' it can now continue to be called the National Rail Timetable. I'm sure at some point when Great British Railways comes into being it will be renamed, but that's not for now...
TABLE Nos
There will be no return to the current obsolete numbering, nor any further fullscale renumbering, but there will always be scope for tweaking when required. There are firebreak blanks in the numbering to allow for this, eg when The Ashington line opens it will be table 44, when East-West opens it will be 114. As a compromise, a table number comparsion page has been created where you can cross-check old numbers to new numbers until that becomes unnecessary as time goes by and this is shown on the NR page
MILEAGES
As mileages will never appear in my own product as it currently stands, NR will produce and manage something appropriate on their own pages into which I have no input
MAPS
NR will also manage the arrangements for maps on their own pages into which I have no input

So, what you see on the NR website is the definitive Dec 2021 NRT, with the data as correct as it could possibly be at the publication deadline, and unless specifically requested by NR these tables will be fixed and not be updated.
As always, this is also an LTP (long term plan) timetable and cannot take account of short-term variations due to engineering work, Covid reductions, etc etc. They have an open link on their page where you can offer feedback, please use it so that they can consider all responses and feedback to me that which they wish to change next time.

As owner of the original product, Fabrik do have complete freedom to do what they like with it as a standalone product, and we do intend to develop it further. The plan is for a distinct webpage, professionally created, hosting all the tables in html format with the pdfs still available as now, but behind a preview/print button on each table. The html views will of course be interactive, with many 'click and view' functions, with links to maps, station information, bus services etc, but this is all stage 2 stuff for 2022. In the meantime, the tables hosted by ourselves will be updated to capture any LTP changes taking place and this is likely to be on a weekly basis depending on the volume of changes, the 1st of which will take place next week.

The NR offering can be found here and the Fabrik offering here

Brian

Now I've had time to scroll through half the tables, a couple of small points strike me:

1. Would it help to have a visual indication of the "core" section of a table, where all trains appear. Eg 077 where the core is Warrington/Crewe-Llandudno/Holyhead plus Helsby-Ellesmere Port. A solid line down the lefthand side of each page?
2. Several tables (eg 090,091 Manchester-Airport/Stockport) are described as "summary" when they include the complete service and all intermediate stations; they would be better labelled as "complete service" if a label is needed.

Edit in the light of post #81: I have fed back to NR as suggested.

Like Frankenstein, I actually do not like table 77 as I have created it, it is too unwieldy. It is of course meant to be the North Wales mainline, with extensions to ultimate end points. I feel that I should look to detach the Manchester/Leeds/Liverpool to Ellesmere PortChester into a separate table 78, but by doing that you lose ALL the interconnectivity at Chester currently available in a single view. Will consider this for next time.

Agree on the Summary v Complete comment, that can be changed next time

A couple of points, using my home town of Shrewsbury as an example. It's a shame that Table 64 which includes Telford and Shrewsbury, doesn't have a reference number by those stations, showing that a more detailed timetable is available in Table 75.
Secondly, in Table 76, the arrival and departure time at Shrewsbury is often shown as the same minute. Other posters on this forum, supposedly with rail knowledge, have pointed out to me that doors must be locked for around one minute prior to departure, and if you add that to the time for passengers to get on and off, then surely at bigger stations at least 2 minutes should be shown.
Thirdly, the old timetables used to display rail mileages on the first page of each induvidual timetable. This was an excellent feature and it would be good to see it reintroduced.
But in general, yes a great source of information.

This issue has been raised many times , so for this publication I decided to do this which I believe it to be more intuitive than yet another column of numbers against the station bank and every table has something similar where necessary. I feel that plain English text is preferable wherever possibleView attachment 106508



I'm not sure what you are referring to as table 76 doesnt include Shrewsbury. Do you mean Stafford by any chance? If so then, as with any location, the times displayed are only those that are held in the Network Rail database and I am not personally in a position to question what the system throws out in a classic 'computer says this' way. That is not to say they are wrong of course, but the issue of dwell times is entirely in the hands of Train Planning teams

The issue of mileages is being addressed separately by Network Rail on their own webpage and I have no input into it

Some comments below Brians post about archiving for future historians. Brian, Please talk to Matthew at Timetable world (timetableworld.com) about making old versions available on his website.
Also, consider making sure your site and the PDF's are archived to Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) - an online archive of electronic stuff, including websites, media, books etc

Thankyou, I am aware of both sites and will certainly look into this when the dust has settled

Road numbering (A and B roads) goes clockwise round London, starting with the Great North Road (A1). Scotland is handled separately. based on the A7/A8/A9 radiating from Edinburgh, apart from the Borders and East Lothian east of the A7, where the English road numbering system is extended either side of the A1 as far as Edinburgh. Historically of course, this was Anglo-Saxon territory, when Cumberland (now in England) was part of Celtic Strathclyde.

On topic, the new GB rail timetable pdfs (Dec 2021) available from the Network Rail website, use clearer fonts, but lack mileages, and there are no maps.

However, the worst feature is unnecessary agglomeration of multiple different lines into a single table. This makes many of the timetables excessively large and difficult to read, particularly on a computer screen, yet alone on a tablet or iphone. One example, and by no means the worst, is table 41, which shows the majority of remaining NE England local services. In this case, it would be clearer and easier to read, if the Bishop Auckland-Saltburn and Newcastle-Middlesbrough-Whitby lines were shown separately. The only overlapping section of route is Thornaby-Middlesbrough, and it would be simpler in this instance just to state at the bottom of the table for each route "Other services between Thornaby and Middlesbrough are shown in tables xxx and yyy" (or have a summary table for all trains between these 2 stations). Another example is inclusion of the separate Kirkby-Wigan and Ormskirk-Preston services in table 83 (Liverpool to Kirkby, Wigan, Ormskirk and Preston).

I take your point about large tables, something I have referred to in an earlier reply, along with the generic reply re mileages and maps. Specifically, those north east tables are planned to be split when the interworking of the Newcastle and Nunthorpe lines ceases in the future, but I dont personally see your point re table 83, I think it works well but am happy to hear from others too

They have to be consistent through all the various industry systems, so it would be a lot of bother for no real benefit - especially when most passengers will never encounter them.

If they could change them I would be a happy man, but i wonder if that will only come about when GBR comes into existence and TOCS are dead ducks

Just checking the WCML tables (Table 65/66/67 etc).
Table 65 seems to be a listing of "inter-city" (VT) services only, and misses the xx46 LM services (which are faster to Crewe than the xx43 VT services via Birmingham).
Table 66 (London-Trent Valley-Crewe) is the reverse - it includes the xx46 LM services, but not the xx43 VTs.
VT services have to make stops in the Trent Valley to be in this table.

Table 65 also excludes TPE and Northern services north of Wigan/Preston.
So as well as not showing connections, it does not represent the totality of services on the WCML.
Are the TPE services north of Preston not "intercity" - same stops/speeds as VT?
Table 65 shows the (currently very few) through services from London to Chester/Holyhead - but it doesn't show the VT connections from Crewe.
So Table 65 isn't even the full Avanti service.

And it's not a criticism of Fabrik, but isn't it time NR revised the operator codes?
Table after table refers to the outdated codes of long-gone operators (eg on the WCML: VT/LM/AW).

Correct, London to Crewe full useful service is table 66. xx43s are of no value to a London-Crewe journey unless first/last/fastest whch I dont think applies. I also stand by my decision to split the WCML into North and South on the basis that something that happens between Manchester and say Lancaster has no relationship to something that happens between Euston and say Liverpool and do not need to be on the same table

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the present day Table 65 being split into sections north and south of Preston, I had thought of that a while ago moreso for post HS2 being as the HS2 trains from London and Birmingham will always overtake the classic InterCity before Crewe and/or Preston.

 

[sjm77]

Table after table refers to the outdated codes of long-gone operators (eg on the WCML: VT/LM/AW).

The most outdated of course being GR dating the GNER days!

 

[BrianB]

The most outdated of course being GR dating the GNER days!

and that is how it will be until those with the power to change them do so. These tables are not hand built, the content is derived from a master database. Not too long before you wont have to worry about them I suppose

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Correct, London to Crewe full useful service is table 66. xx43s are of no value to a London-Crewe journey unless first/last/fastest whch I dont think applies. I also stand by my decision to split the WCML into North and South on the basis that something that happens between Manchester and say Lancaster has no relationship to something that happens between Euston and say Liverpool and do not need to be on the same table

I take all your points, but people do aim for/are directed to slower/indirect trains at times.
Avanti marketing might put you on an "xx43" service via Birmingham even if it is overtaken by later trains, as a way of evening out loadings.
Preston-Euston is another journey where you might be put on the via Birmingham service to avoid the booked-up direct service.
I've seen London-Liverpool tickets routed via Chester and Merseyrail rather than the direct route, using the spare capacity via Chester.
I still think connections are the big missing link, though, as "through trains only" gives a very limited view of national connectivity.

 

[BrianB]

I take all your points, but people do aim for/are directed to slower/indirect trains at times.
Avanti marketing might put you on an "xx43" service via Birmingham even if it is overtaken by later trains, as a way of evening out loadings.
Preston-Euston is another journey where you might be put on the via Birmingham service to avoid the booked-up direct service.
I've seen London-Liverpool tickets routed via Chester and Merseyrail rather than the direct route, using the spare capacity via Chester.
I still think connections are the big missing link, though, as "through trains only" gives a very limited view of national connectivity.

Thing is, all these trains are shown somewhere, so nothing is actually lost, in any case anyone with an advance ticket on a specific train will not require this product. Connections (targeted, not wholesale) are lined up for the next version to plug where only showing direct trains is creating gaps

 

[SargeNpton]

The most outdated of course being GR dating the GNER days!

Or LE for Greater Anglia, when it was London Eastern Railway.

 

[MikeWM]

As compiler of this timetable, let me clarify a few points. Firstly, it needs to be known that although this started out as an independent product, a vanity project of my own separate from the Network Rail NRT, it has now been commissioned as the de-facto Network Rail publication to be used on their website. For me this is fantastic news as it both validates and pays for all the hard work that has gone into it.

A most impressive result

I wonder if it is worth starting a new thread and/or renaming this thread at this point. I almost started a new thread myself earlier today, having read the introduction on the Network Rail site for the December timetable, before I (re-)found this thread. I'm sure there will be a few more of us who would like the join the discussion now that this is the 'official' timetable

 

[BrianB]

A most impressive result

I wonder if it is worth starting a new thread and/or renaming this thread at this point. I almost started a new thread myself earlier today, having read the introduction on the Network Rail site for the December timetable, before I (re-)found this thread. I'm sure there will be a few more of us who would like the join the discussion now that this is the 'official' timetable

I have no view either way, if mods wish to rename it to National Rail Timetable please feel free. It will be the official NR NRT for at least the next 2 publications.

 

[berneyarms]

Well done Brian on an absolutely terrific piece of work. The timetables look really good, and the presentation is great.

Also, I am delighted to see that you are offering updated tables on your own site here: https://timetables.fabdigital.uk/nrt/dec2021/ where changes have taken place.

One small thing - could the ferry times be added in table 77 for:
Holyhead to Dublin Port
Holyhead to Dublin Stena

and also in table 126 for:
Fishguard to Rosslare