Why does the railway give passengers obvious lies?

[The exile]

Any such system would also need to know if there were loops or multi-track sections where one train could be overtaken by another, whether such loops or facilities were or were not already occupied by another train, or blocked for some other reason, and whether Signallers and/or Control decided to use that facility, depending on likely delay to the first train. Not quite as simple as it first appears!

Where there are not, then it is exactly as simple as it first seems and yet they can’t even manage that.

 

[Topological]

It would be much harder than you think, considering all the variables in play. It simply estimates based on where that train is along its route at each berth point. Trains are associated to one and another (e.g. Train A arrives at Station Q to form Train B, or Train C stops at Station X,Y,Z en route) but not others around them. So yes it is frustrating when trains tick over and get later and later (such as in your scenario) but the only way around this is manual intervention by a controller which is a educated estimate and this presumes they have the time to do it. And even then, Darwin can still knock out the manual delay once moving.



Agreed, bus info (if it's even there) is truly a work of fiction which appears to simply be the base timetable!



No movement of the booked ID/headcode or the associated (e.g. a 5xxx service forming 2xxx) one within 3-4 minutes (again without manual intervention/override from a controller) will default to "Delayed".



"Expected" is clearly an estimate and why it is named as such - it can change. It could be smarter sure, and things like AI will no doubt help in future but there is the risk that it could also throw up more problems by delaying services where there will not be one. There are a lot of variables, not all of which can be predicted.

For instance where Train A is meant to form Train B but control have manually intervened to step up units or bring a spare unit out to ensure Train B leaves on time. Adding a delay could lead to passengers missing an on-time departure (as I have known to happen).

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

However, I feel you misrepresented my post.

I was showing an example where "delayed" was the correct response since no one knew whether the failed unit could be recovered, or whether a new unit would be available.

The lie in the case I gave was that the train was delayed at the depot. It was not delayed at the depot. The train failed after starting the journey on time. So the truth would have been that the delay was due to the train failing. Delay attribution is something the railway could do better.

 

[Starmill]

I suspect if you took say a years worth of historic data and crunched it, you could work out a fairly accurate list of places where delayed trains can plausibly overtake trains they are "stuck behind".

Yes, absolutely. You could also use machine learning. But you'd have to have the resources to process that much data and go through labour-intensive validation of it in hundreds of different scenarios before you could deploy it commercially.

 

[Horizon22]

Scottish City Link must be an exception then. Just last Monday, the ETA of a coach I was expecting to catch at 1130 was important because (a) I had a connection to make with a train that, in the reduced timetable, was one of only three schduled that day (and the third would, in the event, be cancelled) and (b) it was pouring with rain and there was no shelter at the bus stop.
Seeing it had been on time at 0830 but had apparently not yet reached the next timing point five minutes further on, I phoned SCL who assured me the bus was running to time and two minutes later the online tracker data had been updated - albeit to "data not available", but that was better than "not moved for an hour".
And it did arrive, not more than five minutes late which, given it had been going for five hours already, was not bad.


Problem with "delayed" is that, at least on SWR, it then appears in the "1st" "2nd" "3rd" sequence at the time it should have arrived, ahead of any trains that are running. Thus, at somewhere like Wimbledon, you will see nonsense such as

1st train - xx03 Chessington - approaching
2nd train - xx06 Woking - delayed
3rd train - xx09 Shepperton - 2 minutes

In practice "Delayed" means it hasn't left Waterloo yet, and so there is no way it can arrive before a train that is only two minutes away. It also crowds out trains that are actually close at hand.

Some systems knock the delayed train further down the list, but not all CIS packages/versions have this built in and sometimes it is operator preference.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

However, I feel you misrepresented my post.

I was showing an example where "delayed" was the correct response since no one knew whether the failed unit could be recovered, or whether a new unit would be available.

The lie in the case I gave was that the train was delayed at the depot. It was not delayed at the depot. The train failed after starting the journey on time. So the truth would have been that the delay was due to the train failing. Delay attribution is something the railway could do better.

Ah right, well that is one of the Darwin reasons for the delay which has been manually input on the CIS.

Note this is nothing to do with official delay attribution and is just the information controller’s best attempt to put a singular reason in limited time on what might be a complicated delay requiring a lot of root cause investigation. Thus, it won’t be perfect.

 

[Topological]

Some systems knock the delayed train further down the list, but not all CIS packages/versions have this built in and sometimes it is operator preference.



Ah right, well that is one of the Darwin reasons for the delay which has been manually input on the CIS.

Note this is nothing to do with official delay attribution and is just the information controller’s best attempt to put a singular reason in limited time on what might be a complicated delay requiring a lot of root cause investigation. Thus, it won’t be perfect.

That is a useful link, I note that 120 was the reason, but 121 was the reason used.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Although not good railway information is still light years ahead of that in the bus world that seems the work of pure fiction much of the time with buses just disappearing off screens and nobody to tweet or if they do that reply within an hour or even next day.

Indeed.

I've waited at night in the cold stupidly reassured that the bus home is due in 10 minutes - counts down to 1 - changes to 'due' then changes to the next ('59 minutes') departure. With no bus. Stagecoach.

That is lying - there never was a bus.on that timing.

 

[superkopite]

Indeed.

I've waited at night in the cold stupidly reassured that the bus home is due in 10 minutes - counts down to 1 - changes to 'due' then changes to the next ('59 minutes') departure. With no bus. Stagecoach.

That is lying - there never was a bus.on that timing.

That's not lying.

You can only lie if you know what you are stating is incorrect. Lying is much more about the intent of what you say rather than the factual accuracy of what you say.

 

[MikeWM]

As stated above, it does with no movement after 4 minutes.

Which makes sense most of the time and is better than a clearly ficticious arrival time.

However, this goes a bit wrong if the service has a long station stop anyway, eg. to split a train. Often if you're waiting at Cambridge North for a slightly delayed northbound service that splits at Cambridge, the displayed expected arrival time will usually end up changing to 'delayed' due to the 5-6 minute stop at Cambridge to detach, even though the estimated arrival time hasn't actually changed. It would be rather better if long booked stops were taken into account before something moves to 'delayed' status, but that doesn't seem to be the case (at least not around here).

 

[RT4038]

Indeed.

I've waited at night in the cold stupidly reassured that the bus home is due in 10 minutes - counts down to 1 - changes to 'due' then changes to the next ('59 minutes') departure. With no bus. Stagecoach.

That is lying - there never was a bus.on that timing.

I think you have made the assumption that the board you are observing contains real time live information, rather than it just being a fancy timetable display ?

 

[Merle Haggard]

I think you have made the assumption that the board you are observing contains real time live information, rather than it just being a fancy timetable display ?

Indeed. The displays were not real time and had only the same information that a photocopied timetable in the case would have, but I was misled - I had assumed that they were the same as railway ones, but found out the hard way. What would be the point of expensive displays that weren't real time?

It's fair to say that, now, I can look at a route map which shows real time the position of every bus on a route and its progress against timetable, which I now rely on. It's called BusTimes and it's from outside the bus industry. Bit like RealTimeTrqins and OpenTrainTimes, also most useful and from outside.

 

[al78]

Sometimes you might see a train showing as "9 minutes late", then a minute later "10 minutes late", then a minute later "11 minutes late" and so on. This usually means that the train is stationary, but the system has no means of predicting what the actual delay will be.

Yeah I love that, the trolling screens .

 

[Merle Haggard]

Yeah I love that, the trolling screens .

It doesn't happen now, but at Wellingborough it was the case that the screen update every minute of an evidently stationery train was accompanied by the Annie announcement expressing sorrow. Could be a bit intrusive if there was more than one stationery train..

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought AI would solve all these sorts of problems.
There are also increasingly sophisticated train planning/operation systems available to "control".
Things like how to route trains during disruption for optimum benefit (train/crew rescheduling etc).
One solution might have been to send the Cleethorpes non-stop via the Chat Moss line to get back to schedule.

 

[uglymonkey]

The airlines ( and the railways sadly) are run for the benefit of the airlines/railways, not the customers. If a "little white lie" gets rid of the customer asking awkward questions and makes them go away, then all the better as it makes the job easier ( for the airlines/railways).

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. The displays were not real time and had only the same information that a photocopied timetable in the case would have, but I was misled - I had assumed that they were the same as railway ones, but found out the hard way. What would be the point of expensive displays that weren't real time?

But, to be fair, you still made an assumption. You misled yourself really.

 

[DarloRich]

I am currently at Manchester Oxford Road awaiting the 19:09 departure to Cleethorpes. The information boards show a 15 minute delay with expected departure time of 19:24. This is a BLATENT LIE.
This train left Lime Street late for whatever reason and is now trapped behind the CLC stopper via Warrington Central with no possibility to overtake it. The stopper is due to terminate here at 19:33 and the Cleethorpes train will only arrive afterwards. OK, so the stopper (2O92) may arrive a few minutes early as there will be some pathing or recovery time towards the end of the journey but in reality that never happens beaucse it will be delayed by a Freighliner ahead waiting to cross Castlefield Junction! Either way I am telling other passengers that we will be minimum 25 minutes late possibly 30!

lets keep calm and not overreact.

It isn't a BLATENT LIE or anything of the sort. It is symptom of the fact that the information systems used to "power" the screens are not sentient! It is simply a limitation of the type of data available, the mechanisms available to collect and disseminate that data and how it can be published to the public. it isn't perfect but the railway information systems are better than many (most) other public transport data systems out there.

BTW: Not everything that goes against you in life is a conspiracy. Most of the time it is not even a cock up! Usually it is just life.

It cannot be beyond the wit of man to have a system that knows a train cannot overtake another by passing right through the middle of the first train

Feel free to have a go.

If computer systems consistently turn out such drivel, then they are not fit for purpose.

Sadly, the real world is not the perfect RUK world.

I suspect if you took say a years worth of historic data and crunched it, you could work out a fairly accurate list of places where delayed trains can plausibly overtake trains they are "stuck behind".

As above - work together and see if you can produce something.

if the industry puts its mind to it. Which it won't

becuase it has neither the time, money nor human resource to do so when there are bigger fish to fry.


( there will also need to be a lot of computer power used and data validation done before you even design a usable output. Doable, but not easy or cheap)

The airlines ( and the railways sadly) are run for the benefit of the airlines/railways, not the customers. If a "little white lie" gets rid of the customer asking awkward questions and makes them go away, then all the better as it makes the job easier ( for the airlines/railways).

there isn't a conspiracy behind all of this. No one , corporately, is taking a decision to "lie" to you. it is just life.

 

[The exile]

Sadly, the real world is not the perfect RUK world.

Indeed - what irritates me about all the examples I’ve given is that the correct information was there and available - but the incorrect information was being given to the public. Also, sadly, whatever the most recent (ie last 3 or 4 years) updates have been, they seem to have made things worse, not better.

 

[DarloRich]

but the incorrect information was being given to the public. Also, sadly, whatever the most recent (ie last 3 or 4 years) updates have been

the issue is surely the human capacity to intervene when people are trying to cover so many jobs. I am sure in them olden days there was someone who only did announcements and info. Now it will be a subsection of a subsection of a job description.

 

[The exile]

the issue is surely the human capacity to intervene when people are trying to cover so many jobs. I am sure in them olden days there was someone who only did announcements and info. Now it will be a subsection of a subsection of a job description.

In the cases I quoted all that is needed is to have the automatic announcements triggered by whatever feeds the “staff information “ screens instead of whatever currently fails to do the job properly. Once the road has been set into platform 1, any automated system that gives three successive announcements that the train will arrive at platform 2 is clearly connected to the wrong info feed. Yes, I know that in theory the road could be reset, but the circumstances that would give rise to that are unlikely to be programmed into any auto-announcer’s sentence bank!

 

[Merle Haggard]

But, to be fair, you still made an assumption. You misled yourself really.

Guilty as charged!

 

[3141]

Part of the problem, which is evidenced by some of the posts in this thread, is that people have been conditioned to believe that (a) every relevant piece of information is in existence, and (b) it is available to the information systems that power the displays and to the those who are running the show. The railway companies/airlines/airports/bus companies and probably many others are partly to blame for this because they like to give the impression that they can tell us exactly what is going on. We lap it up. If each piece of information was scrutinised by a human being who knew everything about the relevant infrastructure, state of the traffic, and so on, it might be possible to tell the public exactly what was happening and provide up-to-date and accurate forecasts of when the service will arrive. What we're actually getting is information fragments that are presented as if they were the full story. Maybe AI will one day be able to do a better job, but as I'm inclined to regard AI as standing for Artificial Imbecile I don't hold much confidence in future arrangements.

 

[norbitonflyer]

All I ask is that, if the information screens cannot be made to give the correct information, the staff have the authority to switch them off.

I have had the ludicrous situation at Wimbledon that immediately after ebery automated announcement, the staff had to give an announcement contradicting it - it was a "Two Ronnies" situation, the announcements had got out of sync and were announcing the stopping pattern of each train just after it had left, instead of that of the train now approaching.

 

[voyagerdude220]

I remember being at Preston on Monday morning, waiting for the 08:58 TPE to Glasgow Central. At around 08:55 I noticed that the next train indicator was showing the delayed 08:50 TPE to Manchester Airport. Despite this, the automated PA system announced that the next train on platform 4 would be the 08:58 to Glasgow Central, just as the Manchester Airport arrived on platform 4.

I knew the Glasgow was almost certainly going to use platform 3 instead. Of course it did- yet the platform alteration was only announced after the 08:58 had already started pulling into platform 3.

I think it's very poor that no member of staff had noticed the clash of platforms in advance and pro actively announced the re platforming of one of the two trains before they arrived.

 

[Falcon1200]

Indeed. The displays were not real time and had only the same information that a photocopied timetable in the case would have, but I was misled - I had assumed that they were the same as railway ones, but found out the hard way.

The same situation exists with those (very few) bus stops in Renfrewshire which have electronic screens; They show the next buses until departure time whereupon they simply disappear, regardless of whether the service is actually running, on time or at all! Meaning I have waited for buses which never turned up.

What would be the point of expensive displays that weren't real time?

Indeed, they are a waste of money and electricity, providing not one bit more information than timetable posters.

But, to be fair, you still made an assumption. You misled yourself really.

For anyone used to railway information screens (occasionally imperfect as they may be) they almost seemed designed to mislead. At least the railway tries....

 

[secretlondon]

I waited for the London train at Leeds this week. Originally the board said it was on time. It then added a few minutes late every so often. However I knew it was much later than this using RTT as the incoming train was delayed for 30 minutes. It could have never set off before it had arrived!

 

[Krokodil]

In the cases I quoted all that is needed is to have the automatic announcements triggered by whatever feeds the “staff information “ screens instead of whatever currently fails to do the job properly. Once the road has been set into platform 1, any automated system that gives three successive announcements that the train will arrive at platform 2 is clearly connected to the wrong info feed. Yes, I know that in theory the road could be reset, but the circumstances that would give rise to that are unlikely to be programmed into any auto-announcer’s sentence bank!

In my experience (perhaps things vary around the country) the CIS doesn‘t recognise when a route is called, it's looking out for the TD berth stepping forward, which won't happen until the train passes the signal. Any platform changes before then are manually inputted.

 

[Merle Haggard]

there isn't a conspiracy behind all of this. No one , corporately, is taking a decision to "lie" to you. it is just life.

The designers have taken a decision to display information based on it being a perfect world in which buses never run late or are cancelled.
It they did that decision despite knowing the world is not perfect they are lying, by your definition.
What defence is there?

 

[43066]

The designers have taken a decision to display information based on it being a perfect world in which buses never run late or are cancelled.
It they did that decision despite knowing the world is not perfect they are lying, by your definition.
What defence is there?

That’s the decision taken by anyone who ever publishes a timetable of any sort, surely?

If a paper timetable was placed there, and a bus was late for whatever reason, presumably you would consider the paper timetable to be lying to you?

 

[RT4038]

Guilty as charged!

Cooler!

Seriously though, there just isn't the same 'control' of a bus service that there is on the railway. There is no equivalent of Network Rail, of signalmen and station staff, of track circuits or of control rooms and controllers. Sure, your average bus depot (i.e. not in London) will have a controller on duty at least for part of the time the buses are running, but they will be doing duty coverage, some part of wages, staff queries about every subject under the sun, lost property, ticket machine issues etc. No-one is monitoring what the buses are doing, only if they are made aware of a problem, and even then usually the simplest and easiest solution to make a problem go away will likely be adopted, which is not necessarily that in the best interests of passengers.

Added to this is that there has been no national standards for equipment and systems, and whilst there are (sort of) now, there are lots of legacy issues. Real time equipment and systems are provided by Local Authorities (there has never been any compulsion for bus operators to do so, nor is there the money in the industry for that to be any kind of practicality, and indeed bus operators have pushed back co-operating with schemes that require substantial admin by them). However, Local Authorities have often funded these things from specific capital grants, with no funding for ongoing maintenance and upgrades. It is only relatively recently that all buses have been fitted (although not necessarily working or working properly - and 'enforcement' of that is another thorny issue) with GPS trackers and the software to convert that to meaningful information is a lot less perfect than you might imagine. Couple that to issues with journey identification to each bus and the human error that creeps in there will make one realise that these displays are often of little use. As with anything electronic, you need to understand where the data is coming from and what does it represent.

The designers have taken a decision to display information based on it being a perfect world in which buses never run late or are cancelled.
It they did that decision despite knowing the world is not perfect they are lying, by your definition.
What defence is there?

That’s the decision taken by anyone who ever publishes a timetable of any sort, surely?

If a paper timetable was placed there, and a bus was late for whatever reason, presumably you would consider the paper timetable to be lying to you?

Quite! They are an expensive (and in the past, clumsy) way of presenting timetable information, but are still that nonetheless. But with modern displays which can be used instead of posting paper timetables, with the advantage of instant update, even if accurate actual bus running information is still some way off yet.

 

[43066]

Quite! They are an expensive (and in the past, clumsy) way of presenting timetable information, but are still that nonetheless. But with modern displays which can be used instead of posting paper timetables, with the advantage of instant update, even if accurate actual bus running information is still some way off yet.

Indeed. It’s quite a leap to consider that inevitable limitations in data gathering/display are akin to lying!