Services advertised as terminating at penultimate station

[nw1]

What's wrong with "X via Y" where Y is a large town or junction station along the way?

For example the Harrogate service could say "York via Harrogate".

Or the Guildford-Waterloo via Ascot service, when they ran, could have been "Waterloo via Ascot" or "Waterloo via Camberley" if Ascot is deemed too obscure for non-railway people.

 

[GordonT]

What's wrong with "X via Y" where Y is a large town or junction station along the way?

For example the Harrogate service could say "York via Harrogate".

Or the Guildford-Waterloo via Ascot service, when they ran, could have been "Waterloo via Ascot" or "Waterloo via Camberley" if Ascot is deemed to obscure for non-railway people.

My previous post (58) also supports this strategy.

 

[gaillark]

Ealing Broadway was shown as the destination for stopping services to Paddington at Reading prior to the introduction of the full Elizabeth Line services.

 

[43095john]

Three questions relating to services such as York-Leeds stoppers which at York are advertised as York-Burley Park and at Leeds are advertised as Leeds-Poppleton the logic being to dissuade end to end pax from unwittingly boarding a service with a significantly longer journey time than faster options.
i) Do services of this sort morph into admitting their real destination on announcements and destination screens once they have departed?;
ii) Would the real destination be disclosed at the departure terminus if the alternative faster options became thin on the ground e.g. evening/Sunday frequency reductions, multiple ad hoc cancellations/severe disruption affecting only the faster options?;
iii) If someone in the know had their own reason for preferring to travel by the much slower service e.g. guaranteed a seat or meeting up with someone joining the train en route, is there likely to be any staff resistance to them travelling end to end on the slow option as long as they have a valid end to end ticket?

With Regards to the York - Burley Park Situation

1) Yes as soon as they leave York Northern have now programmed into all units with TrainFX PIS to Switch the destination to Leeds before it arrives at Poppleton

2) Genrally only if there is no other option available (If TPE is diverting via Castleford this is still quicker than via Harrogate, also a non-stop rail Replacement York - Leeds is also quicker at just 40 mins). It would have to be done manually by the station on their CIS.

3) It does happen, Northern sell York - Leeds advances that are booked on journeys via Harrogate leading to confusion when they can't find their Leeds service on the board. A quick ask of station staff will clarify which service they need usually solves the issue.

Most people that book journeys via Harrogate are usually on apps where it has recommended it instead of the Quicker Northern services via Garforth (A certain Non-TOC App beginning with T and ending in E appears to be the biggest culprit)

 

[zwk500]

What's wrong with "X via Y" where Y is a large town or junction station along the way?

For example the Harrogate service could say "York via Harrogate".

One potential problem is that not every display will show the 'via' point, and equally many passengers don't check carefully.
I personally think both situations could be eased by showing the arrival times more consistently on station displays.

 

[nw1]

On a related matter, back in the days before electronic displays in the 80s, I remember that all Ascot services at Guildford were advertised on the station announcements as terminating at Ascot.

Most did. However a number of peak, and contra-peak, services worked through to and from Waterloo. For example in 1982, in the afternoon every Ascot departure from Guildford, from 1503 to 1703 inclusive worked through to Waterloo. However they were all advertised as terminating Ascot (even though they could have been useful for Staines, Feltham and Richmond, for example).

 

[WibbleWobble]

Back in the days when there was a Poole-Waterloo stopper/semi-fast, the destination was shown as Farnborough to encourage through London passengers to catch the faster (later) train.

Farnborough seemed to be a later thing, I recall it used to be Basingstoke. Must have changed when the stopping pattern was amended.

 

[northwichcat]

Were they? Don't you have to buy the more expensive route "via Manchester" ticket to travel from Crewe to Liverpool Stns via Manchester Piccadilly?

The appreciably cheaper alternative seems to be route "NOT via Manchester" variant.

I think that could still be misleading. Say you hold a Crewe to Liverpool Route:Manchester ticket and you hear Liverpool tickets aren't valid on the Northern service. Could that suggest you need to get an Avanti/TfW service to Manchester and then a TPE/EMR service to Liverpool?

 

[IanXC]

1. Journey planners will sometimes say xx:xx service towards York.
2. Pdf timetables (and printed where available) highlight the first and final station on the line.
3. Someone who has used the line before is more likely to remember it ends at York, rather than it calls at Poppleton between Harrogate and York.

1. This isn't an unusual situation, such misleading information provision is the fault of journey planners.
2. Anyone taking the time to look at such a pdf timetable will have absorbed enough information to understand the service.
3. As 2, if they've travelled on the line they're likely to recall the service provision.

What I think it does do is highlights the folly of pretending that an entire service terminates at some unlikely shack with a, let's face it, fairly ludicrous name. I'd go for advertising it York via Harrogate with more high profile promotion at Leeds of faster options for York pax. Likewise at York it would be Leeds via Harrogate rather than Burley Park.

No one is pretending anything. The reality is that advertising a service as "Leeds via Harrogate" will result in people trying to get to Leeds catching that service and complaining that they have been delayed by over an hour. In any case once part of your argument is that an established settlement has a "fairly ludicrous name" then I think you have admitted defeat.

What's wrong with "X via Y" where Y is a large town or junction station along the way?

For example the Harrogate service could say "York via Harrogate".

Or the Guildford-Waterloo via Ascot service, when they ran, could have been "Waterloo via Ascot" or "Waterloo via Camberley" if Ascot is deemed too obscure for non-railway people.

The issue is that people don't read beyond what they are looking for. "Leeds via Harrogate" results in "well it said Leeds and thats where I want to go, but you've delayed me by over an hour...."

 

[northwichcat]

2. Anyone taking the time to look at such a pdf timetable will have absorbed enough information to understand the service.

People will only remember the relevant facts. Unless the station name is something like Penistone, it won't be remembered by people from outside the area. They won't read every word of the timetable or remember every station name, just the bits relating to the service they intend to use. For example, some from Peterborough heading to the Yorkshire Show will remember xx:xx LNER service to Leeds, then xxx:xx Northern service to Harrogate, that continues to York afterwards.

The issue is that people don't read beyond what they are looking for.

Exactly! You've contradicted yourself in trying to defend the approach of advertising the penultimate destination. Why would someone study every word of a pdf timetable and learn the name of every station if they only want to travel between two stations on it at a specific time, on a specific day?

"Leeds via Harrogate" results in "well it said Leeds and thats where I want to go, but you've delayed me by over an hour...."

So should all Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham departures from York be advertised as Leeds, to prevent someone missing a fast train between York and Leeds? You can't cater for everyone. Putting a line in saying local stopping service works fine for the Northern service between Manchester and Sheffield, and also the one between Manchester and Liverpool. I don't think we need to treat local passengers in West and North Yorkshire passengers like idiots, when Merseyside, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire passengers are intelligent enough to find the fast trains if they want to get between cities quickly.

The approach used at Manchester Airport works well. There's a board with "Next service to Manchester". It works well because a foreign tourist won't know that a train to anywhere but Crewe will call at Manchester Piccadilly. At Leeds they could have a board with Next fast to Manchester, York and Huddersfield and solve any potential issue for passengers travelling on multiple different routes.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think that could still be misleading. Say you hold a Crewe to Liverpool Route:Manchester ticket and you hear Liverpool tickets aren't valid on the Northern service. Could that suggest you need to get an Avanti/TfW service to Manchester and then a TPE/EMR service to Liverpool?

You may well have a point. Although can't imagine too many folk buying the expensive "route via Manchester" fare for a trip from Crewe to Liverpool.

 

[northwichcat]

You may well have a point. Although can't imagine too many folk buying the expensive "route via Manchester" fare for a trip from Crewe to Liverpool.

It potentially may have a use for some business people. Say if they have a morning meeting in Manchester and an afternoon one in Liverpool. But it is strange the ticket isn't just Route: Any Permitted

 

[zwk500]

People will only remember the relevant facts. Unless the station name is something like Penistone, it won't be remembered by people from outside the area. They won't read every word of the timetable or remember every station name, just the bits relating to the service they intend to use. For example, some from Peterborough heading to the Yorkshire Show will remember xx:xx LNER service to Leeds, then xxx:xx Northern service to Harrogate, that continues to York afterwards.

The departure boards resolve any problem for intermediate stations by listing the calling points. Most people will remember 'I need the 1645 to Harrogate' and therefore look for a train at Leeds departing 1645 that calls at Harrogate and not give a fig what the end destination is.

So should all Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham departures from York be advertised as Leeds, to prevent someone missing a fast train between York and Leeds? You can't cater for everyone. Putting a line in saying local stopping service works fine for the Northern service between Manchester and Sheffield, and also the one between Manchester and Liverpool. I don't think we need to treat local passengers in West and North Yorkshire passengers like idiots, when Merseyside, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire passengers are intelligent enough to find the fast trains if they want to get between cities quickly.

The number of instances when somebody would want to travel via Manchester from Liverpool to Crewe or vice versa must surely be limited to those people who have something to do in Manchester on the way, and therefore will be looking to travel to Manchester anyway.

The approach used at Manchester Airport works well. There's a board with "Next service to Manchester". It works well because a foreign tourist won't know that a train to anywhere but Crewe will call at Manchester Piccadilly. At Leeds they could have a board with Next fast to Manchester, York and Huddersfield and solve any potential issue for passengers travelling on multiple different routes.

I'm fairly sure Leeds has a 'next fastest' board. Not sure about York.

 

[northwichcat]

The departure boards resolve any problem for intermediate stations by listing the calling points. Most people will remember 'I need the 1645 to Harrogate' and therefore look for a train at Leeds departing 1645 that calls at Harrogate and not give a fig what the end destination is.

The displays on platforms presumably list every calling point. However, it's not practical for every departures display at a station to list every calling point for every train, unless it's a station with only one train per hour in each direction. The big stations often have a huge display listing every station with a service in the next hour, but if you're arriving on another service it won't be the first display you'll see and getting to the big display might require exiting through ticket barriers and then re-entering through the same ones.

 

[zwk500]

The displays on platforms presumably list every calling point. However, it's not practical for every departures display at a station to list every calling point for every train, unless it's a station with only one train per hour in each direction. The big stations often have a huge display listing every station with a service in the next hour, but if you're arriving on another service it won't be the first display you'll see and getting to the big display might require exiting through ticket barriers and then re-entering through the same ones.

At Leeds specifically there's a big display on the middle Island with more detail than you normal departures. At places like York there is a summary departures list on which you could locate the 1645, and if there is more than one 1645 you could have an informed guess as to whether 'Plymouth' is likely to be the Harrogate train. Then go down to the platform and check the departure board listing the stops of the next train.

The actual answer to this is service categorisation and train/route numbers, as Europe does. So the RE4562 to Leeds and the IC724 to Leeds are clearly different trains, and it's fairly intuitive even to people not used to the railway which one is likely to be fastest to Leeds and which one calls at loads of stations along the way. You could even have the Northern services on pattern numbers, so it's always the S45 from Leeds to York via Harrogate whether it's at 1045, 1145, 1245 or whenever.

 

[northwichcat]

The actual answer to this is service categorisation and train/route numbers, as Europe does. So the RE4562 to Leeds and the IC724 to Leeds are clearly different trains, and it's fairly intuitive even to people not used to the railway which one is likely to be fastest to Leeds and which one calls at loads of stations along the way.

Would it help though? Manchester to Newcastle, Manchester Airport to Saltburn and Blackpool to York are slow stopping services for part of their routes, but they all run Leeds to York non-stop. If we use the German system we could end up with fast Leeds-York services having each of RB, RE and IC classifications, with it just being the 'S-Bahn' via Harrogate that needs to be avoided.

 

[zwk500]

Would it help though? Manchester to Newcastle, Manchester Airport to Saltburn and Blackpool to York are slow stopping services for part of their routes, but they all run Leeds to York non-stop. If we use the German system we could end up with fast Leeds-York services having each of RB, RE and IC classifications, with it just being the 'S-Bahn' via Harrogate that needs to be avoided.

For this specific issue yes, because there are only certain destinations where this is a problem.
There are other threads on the wider issues of train numbers, which I do not believe to be insurmountable but do require careful thought if they were to be used.

 

[northwichcat]

For this specific issue yes, because there are only certain destinations where this is a problem.
There are other threads on the wider issues of train numbers, which I do not believe to be insurmountable but do require careful thought if they were to be used.

I think for the average passenger at Leeds/York a general rule of TPE or XC = fast and Northern = check before boarding, would work better. New branding takes time for occasional passengers to pick up. There's still people who think they're travelling on Virgin Trains services.

Personally I've found RJ branding on the continent confusing - a fast train that needs a more expensive ticket but isn't branded IC or ICE. I also ended up paying more than I needed to for a journey in Spain recently as I didn't realise there were Iryo services and they weren't offered through RENFE's website, so I purchased an AVANT ticket. We don't think the same way as people do in European countries, as we're used to using a different system.

 

[zwk500]

I think for the average passenger at Leeds/York a general rule of TPE or XC = fast and Northern = check before boarding, would work better. New branding takes time for occasional passengers to pick up. There's still people who think they're travelling on Virgin Trains services.

This system would potenrially solve that as TPE, XC, Virginia and Avanti would all be 'IC' and northern would be RE or L/S (or any other branding such as 'WY'). However there are a lot what's to implement train numbers so I won't go into how I specifically would set it up here, but broadly the Belgian practice would be my guide.

Personally I've found RJ branding on the continent confusing - a fast train that needs a more expensive ticket but isn't branded IC or ICE. I also ended up paying more than I needed to for a journey in Spain recently as I didn't realise there were Iryo services and they weren't offered through RENFE's website, so I purchased an AVANT ticket. We don't think the same way as people do in European countries, as we're used to using a different system.

If you were implementing the system in full you'd clearly define your train categories and structure your service accordingly, minimising the number of local exceptions needed. OAO would probably need to continue to be separated out as independent operators but its workable. However that goes beyond the thread scope.

 

[northwichcat]

This system would potenrially solve that as TPE, XC, Virginia and Avanti would all be 'IC' and northern would be RE or L/S (or any other branding such as 'WY').

Some TPE services from York to Manchester form a local stopping service between Huddersfield and Manchester. You'd then have both slow and fast services between Leeds/Huddersfield and Manchester marked as IC. Hence why I stated some of them would be RB, nevermind RE.

and structure your service accordingly, minimising the number of local exceptions needed.

Easier said then done when Network Rail won't approve paths for additional long distance services (without first withdrawing paths for local stoppers) and when operators have crew shortages. If the original plan for North TPE was in place right now there would be something like 7 services an hour between Huddersfield and Manchester, and your idea would be plausible. However, I can't see that service provision level happening in the next 5 years.

 

[miklcct]

Is it possible to programmaticly determine the "shown destination" (headsign) from National Rail timetable data for use in journey planners?

 

[Gaelan]

Is it possible to programmaticly determine the "shown destination" (headsign) from National Rail timetable data for use in journey planners?

Yes (iirc it's in the Darwin/LDBWS feeds, but not the original CIF data)