Reading display
 

Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

Couldn't they have said that in the first place? If I hadn't seen the
second display panel, I'd have got out at Ealing and taken the tube.
Is there a reason for any of this?

Just curious.

Reading display
 

On 6 Dec, 01:32, pedan3 wrote:
Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

You dont need to do that. With your freedom pass you can buy a
boundary zone 6 ticket return to reading and travel on any train.

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

Couldn't they have said that in the first place? *If I hadn't seen the
second display panel, I'd have got out at Ealing and taken the tube.
Is there a reason for any of this?

If you are going from Reading direct to Paddington I cant think of
anybody who need to do that on the slow train. Unfortunatly many
people just see Paddington and jump on the train and then spend about
an hour on a journey that should take 25 minutes. So the decision has
been taken, correct in my view, to advertise the trains as you
describe.

The same applies to the slow trains from Pad to Oxford which usually
show terminating at Radley .

Reading display
 

On Dec 6, 1:32*am, pedan3 wrote:
Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

Couldn't they have said that in the first place? *If I hadn't seen the
second display panel, I'd have got out at Ealing and taken the tube.
Is there a reason for any of this?

Was there not a display inside the train showing all the calling
points (I know they often don't work)? That would show Paddington if
it was working.

Reading display
 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, pedan3 wrote:

Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

The point is that a slow train is a really bad way to get to Paddington,
but if you advertise it as a Paddington train, some people who aren't
fully on the ball will take it to do just that, and then be very
disappointed about how slow it is. Thus, it's advertised as running to the
last stop before Paddington, so such people won't get on it.

You get this on the ECML too, with slow trains from Cambridge being
advertised as going to Finsbury Park and so on.

It is a bit weird, but i think it's a good idea. Ideally, the details for
on the display should show it going to Paddington, but use Ealing Broadway
as the headline destination - this is what the displays on the ECML do.

tom

--
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. -- Emiliano Zapata

Reading display
 

On Dec 6, 5:39*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, pedan3 wrote:
Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

The point is that a slow train is a really bad way to get to Paddington,
but if you advertise it as a Paddington train, some people who aren't
fully on the ball will take it to do just that, and then be very
disappointed about how slow it is. Thus, it's advertised as running to the
last stop before Paddington, so such people won't get on it.

You get this on the ECML too, with slow trains from Cambridge being
advertised as going to Finsbury Park and so on.

It is a bit weird, but i think it's a good idea. Ideally, the details for
on the display should show it going to Paddington, but use Ealing Broadway
as the headline destination - this is what the displays on the ECML do.

The problem is the lack of consistency and the potential for
confusion. Instead of a fake destination, it would probably be better
to find a consistent way of showing that a train will be overtaken by
at least one other.

If you know that your train to Potters Bar is the 1406 to Cambridge,
you might well ignore the departure to Foxton (which no one has heard
of) shown on the display at Kings Cross.

Reading display
 

On 6 Dec, 17:49, MIG wrote:
If you know that your train to Potters Bar is the 1406 to Cambridge,
you might well ignore the departure to Foxton (which no one has heard
of) shown on the display at Kings Cross.

Conversely if you get on the train to "Foxton" and the driver
announces on the PA that it's the train to Cambridge, it might take a
moment or two wondering what's going on.

(which has happened to me)

U

Reading display
 

MIG wrote:
The problem is the lack of consistency and the potential for
confusion. Instead of a fake destination, it would probably be better
to find a consistent way of showing that a train will be overtaken by
at least one other.

Yes. There should be a better way than lying.

In the old days, you got a painted board with all the stops on in one
go, so you knew at a glance which were the slow trains - but not whether
the next train would be any quicker.

I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Reading display
 

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:
MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

Reading display
 

In message , Tom
Anderson writes
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, pedan3 wrote:

Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

The point is that a slow train is a really bad way to get to
Paddington, but if you advertise it as a Paddington train, some people
who aren't fully on the ball will take it to do just that, and then be
very disappointed about how slow it is. Thus, it's advertised as
running to the last stop before Paddington, so such people won't get on it.

You get this on the ECML too, with slow trains from Cambridge being
advertised as going to Finsbury Park and so on.

It also happens on the Central Line, with trains leaving Woodford for
Central London via Hainault being advertise as for "Hainault", until
they get to Roding Valley, when they suddenly become destined for Ealing
Broadway (or wherever).

It is a bit weird, but i think it's a good idea.
As good as any, yes. There's no ideal solution in these situations and
each one will have pros and cons.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Reading display
 

On Dec 7, 12:58*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

Reading display
 

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

------------

Not colour please. Bad for the colour blind.

Reading display
 

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. *Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

------------

Not colour please. * Bad for the colour blind.

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have
been deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out
where trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train
when you already know where they go.

Reading display
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

'OV'? Meaning what?

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and the
confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes, instead
of which they are being abolished (but that's several other threads).

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have been
deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

Codes which would be of absolutely no use to the vast majority of people,
though? Or could they be made generally understood? I was about to mouth
off about how this was pointless elitism, but then i thought about buses,
and how those are identified by numbers, and still manage to be popular
with non-elitists. How do you see this code system working?

Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out where
trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train when you
already know where they go.

I'd say the fundamental problem was the idea that giving a final
destination is enough to identify where a train goes - that's why, in the
non-lying scheme, people get confused between fast and slow trains. The
lying scheme fixes this by lying about the final destination, but isn't
the answer to add the missing information to the description of the train?

tom

--
The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. -- Alan Kay

Reading display
 

On Dec 7, 5:00*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:
On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

....
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

'OV'? Meaning what?

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and the
confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes, instead
of which they are being abolished (but that's several other threads).

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have been
deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

Codes which would be of absolutely no use to the vast majority of people,
though? Or could they be made generally understood? I was about to mouth
off about how this was pointless elitism, but then i thought about buses,
and how those are identified by numbers, and still manage to be popular
with non-elitists. How do you see this code system working?

That's why I said "comprehensive". As with buses everywhere, many
railways in Europe use codes in timetables and so on, which is
particulary useful when tracking the same train from table to table or
across national boundaries.

Having established that "90" gets you where you are going, and "4"
gets you there via more places, all you need to look out for is "90"
or "4" on the platform and train.

They would need to be used in all timetables, on all platform and
concourse displays and on the trains themselves, as they are with bus
timetables, bus stations and buses.

Your point about buses is very valid. I can't imagine what it is
about trains, whose routes are generally simpler, that makes codes not
possible. It would be interesting to see what the result of removing
route codes from London buses would be, leaving people with only
destinations and scrolling displays.


Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Hmm. Not keen on retrospectively giving technical meanings to
everyday words, and consistency would be a nightmare.



And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

I prefer that, but that convention has been used to imply that you
need to change. The context might make it work I spose.


How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out where
trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train when you
already know where they go.

I'd say the fundamental problem was the idea that giving a final
destination is enough to identify where a train goes - that's why, in the
non-lying scheme, people get confused between fast and slow trains. The
lying scheme fixes this by lying about the final destination, but isn't
the answer to add the missing information to the description of the train?

But it's slow and takes up a lot of space. At London Bridge, when you
are trying to find your platform, there is a slow, scrolling display
for the first train, and only destination for the second and third.

Given the frequency of services, the second train could be very soon.
So you get "Dartford [expected] 3 mins" or "Ramsgate [expected] 2
mins", but of which are totally useless. Why not "70 Dartford" or "90
Ramsgate" which would mean a helluva lot to regulars and take up very
little space.

Reading display
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:00:17 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Or maybe:-

1945 SOUTH HAMPSTEAD
(then London Euston)
Calling at lots of places

(Sorry, don't recall the last stop before Padd to use that example :)
)

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

Germany approaches it poorly, as it does with most PIS things.
However, the sort of thing you'd see is this

dep 19 45 RegionalExpress
haelt ueberall

Maidenhead
Taplow

L O N D O N P A D D I N G T O N

(where the "haelt ueberall" means "stops everywhere").

That said, Germany operates a very distinct system of train classes
(as do the Netherlands), and a RegionalBahn or RegionalExpress (yes,
some of these stop everywhere - the use of this class refers more to
its presence within a regular interval timetable) isn't likely to be
your quickest way to $BIG_CITY if there is another option. So that's
more or less enough.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Reading display
 

In the Netherlands there are two simple types of trains, stopping and
intercity ones. The Dutch train indicator displays are quite big and
display all the stops on one big screen. You'll often see a sign that
says: "Stopping train to Utrecht", calling at XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Utrecht).
Intercity will arrive in Utrecht before this train." Or something
along those lines, I haven't been there for a long time I must say.

Reading display
 

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
et...
MIG wrote:
The problem is the lack of consistency and the potential for
confusion. Instead of a fake destination, it would probably be
better
to find a consistent way of showing that a train will be overtaken
by
at least one other.

Yes. There should be a better way than lying.

In the old days, you got a painted board with all the stops on in
one go, so you knew at a glance which were the slow trains - but not
whether the next train would be any quicker.

I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken


How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of "Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

Reading display
 

Ian Jelf wrote

You get this on the ECML too, with slow trains from Cambridge being
advertised as going to Finsbury Park and so on.

It also happens on the Central Line, with trains leaving Woodford for

Central London via Hainault being advertise as for "Hainault", until
they get to Roding Valley, when they suddenly become destined for
Ealing
Broadway (or wherever).

It is a bit weird, but i think it's a good idea.

As good as any, yes. There's no ideal solution in these situations
and
each one will have pros and cons.

And if "it's lying" is really a common reaction, then change to
"Hainault & beyond" "Finsbury Park & beyond" and so forth which are
"true" but avoid providing a final but confusing destination.

"& route xy" is also possible.

I have previously noted that SWT has loops with both directions going
to Waterloo and, eg, Weybridge to Waterloo via Staines which are both
"long" rather than "slow" and use the same solution as above.

--
Mike D

Reading display
 

In article ,
Matt Wheeler wrote:
How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of "Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

But at a terminus, it's not so good: There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Cheers,
Mike

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Reading display
 

On Dec 8, 11:45*am, Mike Bristow wrote:
How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of *"Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: *at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

Indeed, they already have these at both Waterloo and Reading.

But at a terminus, it's not so good: *There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. * *I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Agreed that the board at Picc is annoying - but the board at London
Bridge works well, despite the enormous number of destinations. The
main difference is that the London Bridge one is a single, static
rectangle, rather than a permanently scrolling triangle.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Reading display
 

On Dec 8, 3:23*pm, John B wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:45*am, Mike Bristow wrote:

How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of *"Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: *at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

Indeed, they already have these at both Waterloo and Reading.

But at a terminus, it's not so good: *There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. * *I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Agreed that the board at Picc is annoying - but the board at London
Bridge works well, despite the enormous number of destinations. The
main difference is that the London Bridge one is a single, static
rectangle, rather than a permanently scrolling triangle.

Is the London Bridge one based on first departure time or first
arrival time?

There is something similar at Lewisham where it just repeats whatever
is on the platform indicator for the next scheduled departure,
regardless of whether there is something else coming first (ie it will
show the time of the one half an hour late rather than the one on time
due five minutes after it). It also shows "Next train to ... Charing
Cross ... cancelled" rather than the time of the next non-cancelled
one.

(Slightly related problem is screens in the concourse just repeating
"stand back ... not for public use" for several minutes, instead of
guiding people to their platform.)

On this ... a strange thing at Greenwich recently.

1st 1020 Cannon Street expected 1022

2nd 1010 Charing Cross cancelled

Can't work out what happened there.

Reading display
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 05:42:48 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:


"Fast" is relative. Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

On the Southern, "fast" and "not calling at" were interchangeable -
"This train is fast from New Cross to Lewisham"
"This train does not call at St. Johns"

Both used indiscriminately.

--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

Reading display
 

Thank you, everybody, for your replies.

I am most intrigued by the idea that the fare on the fast train is
identical to that on the slow train, i.e. that I need only buy a
return from West Drayton (the westmost station the Freedom Pass
allows) to Reading, and that this covers the fast train, even though
the latter does not stop at West Drayton.

Does this always apply? Should, therefore, my fare to Edinburgh be
slightly cheaper because my Freedom Pass covers the stretch from
King's Cross to Finsbury Park, even though the train does not stop at
Finsbury Park?

Looking at the fares on http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk, the journey
planner allows one to add one's Senior Railcard, but not (even for the
Reading journey) one's Freedom Pass. Indeed, it states that the
number of passes added for the fare calculation must not exceed the
number of passengers -- in this case, one. This would seem to
preclude the simultaneous use of a Freedom Pass and a Senior Railcard,
which does not sound logical.

By the way, the slow train to and from Reading was by no means as bad
as painted by some of the replies, and gets there in about an hour.
Sometimes speed is important; sometimes not.





On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:32:39 +0000, pedan3 wrote:

Took the slow train from Paddington to Reading and back today (thus
saving money by using Freedom Pass to maximum extent).

On the way back, the train information display in the main hall at
Reading showed the train terminating at Ealing Broadway, as did the
dot matrix indicators on the platforms.

On a different display screen, which I almost missed, was the
information that all such trains are shown as terminating at Ealing
Broadway, but "of course" (in the words of the second display panel)
they run to Paddington.

Couldn't they have said that in the first place? If I hadn't seen the
second display panel, I'd have got out at Ealing and taken the tube.
Is there a reason for any of this?

Just curious.

Reading display
 

On Dec 9, 3:23*am, pedan3 wrote:
Thank you, everybody, for your replies.

I am most intrigued by the idea that the fare on the fast train is
identical to that on the slow train, i.e. that I need only buy a
return from West Drayton (the westmost station the Freedom Pass
allows) to Reading, and that this covers the fast train, even though
the latter does not stop at West Drayton.

This isn't quite right, as a freedom pass doesn't count as a "season
ticket" for the rules on combining tickets. The relevant wording is:

[you can combine tickets on non-stop trains when:]

(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does
not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a
passenger transport executive or local authority)

It's also possible in London to buy fares from zone boundaries, which
don't require the train to stop irrespective of the type of zonal
ticket you hold - but you need to do so explicitly, buying a return
from Boundary Zone 6 to Reading, not a return from West Drayton. These
are only sold in ticket offices and on trains, not online.

Does this always apply? *Should, therefore, my fare to Edinburgh be
slightly cheaper because my Freedom Pass covers the stretch from
King's Cross to Finsbury Park, even though the train does not stop at
Finsbury Park?

In theory, yes. In practice, the fare for London to Edinburgh type
journeys is usually the same as Finsbury Park to Haymarket type
journeys.

Looking at the fares onhttp://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk, the journey
planner allows one to add one's Senior Railcard, but not (even for the
Reading journey) one's Freedom Pass. *Indeed, it states that the
number of passes added for the fare calculation must not exceed the
number of passengers -- in this case, one. *This would seem to
preclude the simultaneous use of a Freedom Pass and a Senior Railcard,
which does not sound logical.

Indeed - the online planners don't understand ticket combinations or
boundary tickets.

By the way, the slow train to and from Reading was by no means as bad
as painted by some of the replies, and gets there in about an hour.
Sometimes speed is important; sometimes not.

More chance of a seat on-peak, too.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Reading display
 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:23:13 +0000, pedan3 wrote:

I am most intrigued by the idea that the fare on the fast train is
identical to that on the slow train, i.e. that I need only buy a
return from West Drayton (the westmost station the Freedom Pass
allows) to Reading, and that this covers the fast train, even though
the latter does not stop at West Drayton.

I think it was suggested that you get a ticket from "Boundary Zone 6",
which is not quite the same - indeed it ought to be slightly cheaper.

Does this always apply? Should, therefore, my fare to Edinburgh be
slightly cheaper because my Freedom Pass covers the stretch from
King's Cross to Finsbury Park, even though the train does not stop at
Finsbury Park?

If there were a Boundary Zone 6 to Edinburgh fare...

Looking at the fares on http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk, the journey
planner allows one to add one's Senior Railcard, but not (even for the
Reading journey) one's Freedom Pass. Indeed, it states that the
number of passes added for the fare calculation must not exceed the
number of passengers -- in this case, one. This would seem to
preclude the simultaneous use of a Freedom Pass and a Senior Railcard,
which does not sound logical.

As you know, the Freedom pass isn't a railcard, so that note doesn't
apply. You have one railcard, and that's what matters. The Freedom
Pass isn't mentioned, neither are any other ways of having a ticket
already.

You need a fare from a zone boundary (6, in this case), as would
anyone with a Travelcard, so you are not alone. Unfortunately the
on-line sellers have never offered these, but a human at a station
would know immediately what you need.

By the way, the slow train to and from Reading was by no means as bad
as painted by some of the replies, and gets there in about an hour.
Sometimes speed is important; sometimes not.

If you were talking about the Glacier Express, I'd agree!

Richard.

Reading display
 

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:41:55 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

On Dec 8, 3:23*pm, John B wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:45*am, Mike Bristow wrote:

How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of *"Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: *at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

Indeed, they already have these at both Waterloo and Reading.

But at a terminus, it's not so good: *There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. * *I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Agreed that the board at Picc is annoying - but the board at London
Bridge works well, despite the enormous number of destinations. The
main difference is that the London Bridge one is a single, static
rectangle, rather than a permanently scrolling triangle.

Is the London Bridge one based on first departure time or first
arrival time?

Not sure, but East Croydon has one based on first arrival time.

Reading display
 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:54:06 -0800 (PST), sweek
wrote:

In the Netherlands there are two simple types of trains, stopping and
intercity ones. The Dutch train indicator displays are quite big and
display all the stops on one big screen. You'll often see a sign that
says: "Stopping train to Utrecht", calling at XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Utrecht).
Intercity will arrive in Utrecht before this train." Or something
along those lines, I haven't been there for a long time I must say.

This is somewhat sporadic. Most Dutch displays are of the Solari
flap-board type, and because of the limited number of fields it is
common that all stations are *not* shown. However, because they
operate a true Taktfahrplan, it's relatively easy to find out that
more or less all ICs serve A, D and F, and that a Stoptrein serves all
of A, B, C, D, E and F.

You do sometimes get helpful hints as well, but IMX not often. And
one thing they're not good at is displaying a decent all-platforms
departure board at platform level to assist in making a connection.

In terms of the German example, I do recall one train from Hamburg
that was shown as Bremen-Osnabrueck, Essen-Duesseldorf, KOELN-KOBLENZ
on a 3 line display, despite the fact that it went to Basel. This is
probably a similar example to the UK ones given.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Reading display
 

On Dec 9, 9:01*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:41:55 -0800 (PST), MIG





wrote:
On Dec 8, 3:23*pm, John B wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:45*am, Mike Bristow wrote:

How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of *"Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: *at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

Indeed, they already have these at both Waterloo and Reading.

But at a terminus, it's not so good: *There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. * *I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Agreed that the board at Picc is annoying - but the board at London
Bridge works well, despite the enormous number of destinations. The
main difference is that the London Bridge one is a single, static
rectangle, rather than a permanently scrolling triangle.

Is the London Bridge one based on first departure time or first
arrival time?

Not sure, but East Croydon has one based on first arrival time.- Hide quoted text -

Going inwards that certainly makes sense. As it would at Bromley
South, Orpington etc. I wonder if they have them?

But that's for one or two obvious destinations (Victoria, London
Bridge). It would be very complicated to have the first arrivals at
Dartford, Orpington, Ramsgate, Brighton, Barnham etc, sometimes via
different routes, shown at London Bridge.

Reading display
 

On 9 Dec, 23:34, MIG wrote:
But that's for one or two obvious destinations (Victoria, London
Bridge). *It would be very complicated to have the first arrivals at
Dartford, Orpington, Ramsgate, Brighton, Barnham etc, sometimes via
different routes, shown at London Bridge.

And yet it has two of them. One in the interchange concourse above the
platforms, one above the entrance to the subway from by the bus
station down to platforms 1-6. Plus there's a mini one on the main
concourse.

U

Reading display
 

On Dec 9, 11:40*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 9 Dec, 23:34, MIG wrote:

But that's for one or two obvious destinations (Victoria, London
Bridge). *It would be very complicated to have the first arrivals at
Dartford, Orpington, Ramsgate, Brighton, Barnham etc, sometimes via
different routes, shown at London Bridge.

And yet it has two of them. One in the interchange concourse above the
platforms, one above the entrance to the subway from by the bus
station down to platforms 1-6. Plus there's a mini one on the main
concourse.

That was my initial question: does it show first arrivals or first
departures? I spose I could go there and work it out.

Reading display
 

On 9 Dec, 23:43, MIG wrote:
That was my initial question: does it show first arrivals or first
departures? *I spose I could go there and work it out.

Turns out I have a photo of the bloody thing*:
http://picasaweb.google.com/maha.thr...43176564896722

There's a via Greenwich train at 19.38, and a Woolwich via Lewisham at
19.39. Since the Greenwich train almost certainly continues to
Woolwich, and yet Woolwich passengers are told to wait for the 19:39,
It appears to be recommending the earliest arrival rather than simply
the first departure.

(* because it was still showing KXTL and no St Pancras last March)

U

Reading display
 

On Dec 10, 12:03*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 9 Dec, 23:43, MIG wrote:

That was my initial question: does it show first arrivals or first
departures? *I spose I could go there and work it out.

Turns out I have a photo of the bloody thing*:http://picasaweb.google.com/maha.thr...ndonBridge#527...

There's a via Greenwich train at 19.38, and a Woolwich via Lewisham at
19.39. Since the Greenwich train almost certainly continues to
Woolwich, and yet Woolwich passengers are told to wait for the 19:39,
It appears to be recommending the earliest arrival rather than simply
the first departure.

(* because it was still showing KXTL and no St Pancras last March)

*U

Aha. It certainly does. Next question though ... if the via Woolwich
was 10 minutes late or cancelled, would it show the Greenwich one (one
would hope so, but it makes it all the more mysterious why the one I
saw at Lewisham was so crap)?

Reading display
 

On Dec 10, 12:54*am, MIG wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:03*am, Mr Thant





wrote:
On 9 Dec, 23:43, MIG wrote:

That was my initial question: does it show first arrivals or first
departures? *I spose I could go there and work it out.

Turns out I have a photo of the bloody thing*:http://picasaweb.google.com/maha.thr...ndonBridge#527...

There's a via Greenwich train at 19.38, and a Woolwich via Lewisham at
19.39. Since the Greenwich train almost certainly continues to
Woolwich, and yet Woolwich passengers are told to wait for the 19:39,
It appears to be recommending the earliest arrival rather than simply
the first departure.

(* because it was still showing KXTL and no St Pancras last March)

*U

Aha. *It certainly does. *Next question though ... if the via Woolwich
was 10 minutes late or cancelled, would it show the Greenwich one (one
would hope so, but it makes it all the more mysterious why the one I
saw at Lewisham was so crap)?

Er ... actually, it may be a legibility issue. It seems to have been
a Sunday in the old timetable and I think that they are both showing
1939. Note that it shows the next train to Gravesend as the 1954,
which would have been Gillingham via Bexleyheath.

The Woolwich via Lewisham would have been the 1934 which had just gone
or would have been the first to Gravesend.

Reading display
 

On Dec 7, 5:00*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

Exactly in the way you describe (as do several other 'real' European
countries) - using a nationally consistent hierarchy of names/
designations for trains (ICE/EC/IC/IR/RE/RB/S-Bahn etc). This sort of
standardisation is sadly entirely beyond our grasp (cf. the use of a
national symbol in Germany for U-Bahn, S-Bahn and bus/tram stop,
despite different operators in different cities). I don't really know
why.

Reading display
 

On Dec 7, 10:09*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
Ian Jelf wrote





You get this on the ECML too, with slow trains from Cambridge being
advertised as going to Finsbury Park and so on.
It also happens on the Central Line, with trains leaving Woodford for
Central London via Hainault being advertise as for "Hainault", until
they get to Roding Valley, when they suddenly become destined for
Ealing
Broadway (or wherever).
It is a bit weird, but i think it's a good idea.
As good as any, yes. * There's no ideal solution in these situations
and
each one will have pros and cons.

And if "it's lying" is really a common reaction, then change to
"Hainault & beyond" "Finsbury Park & beyond" and so forth which are
"true" but avoid providing a final but confusing destination.

Don't they do something like this at Heathrow T123 - "Cockfosters via
Central London" or something similar, since presumably many new
arrivals at Heathrow will never have heard of Cockfosters or Arnos
Grove :-P

Reading display
 

In message
, at
03:21:16 on Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Rupert Candy
remarked:
avoid providing a final but confusing destination.

Don't they do something like this at Heathrow T123 - "Cockfosters via
Central London" or something similar, since presumably many new
arrivals at Heathrow will never have heard of Cockfosters or Arnos
Grove

Whereas most Metro systems *do* expect you to know the distant terminus.
In Brussels for example, I have to look for "Simonis".
--
Roland Perry

Reading display
 

In article , Neil Williams
writes
1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Or maybe:-

1945 SOUTH HAMPSTEAD
(then London Euston)
Calling at lots of places

Euston used to have, on the Solari:

1025 NORTHAMPTON
Watford Junction
...
Wolverton
Northampton
(continuing on to Rugby, Coventry,
Birmingham International, and Birmingham New Street)

with the last bit being in smaller type and a different colour.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Reading display
 

In article
,
John B writes
It's also possible in London to buy fares from zone boundaries, which
don't require the train to stop irrespective of the type of zonal
ticket you hold - but you need to do so explicitly, buying a return
from Boundary Zone 6 to Reading, not a return from West Drayton. These
are only sold in ticket offices and on trains, not online.

Just a note: a BZ6-Reading "ticket" is not actually a separate ticket;
legally it's a voucher indicating that your ticket has been extended in
validity to Reading. That's why the train doesn't have to stop.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Reading display
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
03:21:16 on Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Rupert Candy remarked:
avoid providing a final but confusing destination.

Don't they do something like this at Heathrow T123 - "Cockfosters via
Central London" or something similar, since presumably many new
arrivals at Heathrow will never have heard of Cockfosters or Arnos
Grove

Whereas most Metro systems *do* expect you to know the distant terminus.
In Brussels for example, I have to look for "Simonis".

Same here, at most places apart from Heathrow. Even as a Londoner and tube
dork, this catches me out sometimes: i was waiting for a Picc train to
somewhere towards Heathrow at one point, and a train came along that was
advertised as going to Osterley (or something). I had to check a map
before i knew if it was one i could catch.


tom

--
solvilvitur ambulando. copy a diamond shape, recording angel. .. ..

Reading display
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:19:34 -0800 (PST), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Exactly in the way you describe (as do several other 'real' European
countries) - using a nationally consistent hierarchy of names/
designations for trains (ICE/EC/IC/IR/RE/RB/S-Bahn etc). This sort of
standardisation is sadly entirely beyond our grasp (cf. the use of a
national symbol in Germany for U-Bahn, S-Bahn and bus/tram stop,
despite different operators in different cities). I don't really know
why.

We have for many years had a standard symbol for a bus stop nationally
(though it is increasingly being stylised by some Councils), namely a
black-on-white bus symbol (as per those found on road signs) with "Bus
Stop" in a sans-serif font underneath. For some reason, London sees
fit to do its own thing.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.