Cant understand why the external panels on Pendolinos and Voyagers
display a train number (eg: VT2345) yet it is not printed in the GBTT
or Virgin freebie TTs.

Bit of a waste of time really IMHO.

On 7 Aug 2005 10:44:22 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
 wrote:


>Cant understand why the external panels on Pendolinos and Voyagers
>display a train number (eg: VT2345) yet it is not printed in the GBTT
>or Virgin freebie TTs.
>
>Bit of a waste of time really IMHO.


It is more sad that it was not brought into general use.  It would be
very useful, especially for reservations.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Maybe they use train numbers to make their operation feel like an
airline?

Dominic

Neil Williams (wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk) said:

> On 7 Aug 2005 10:44:22 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
>  wrote:
>
> > Cant understand why the external panels on Pendolinos
> > and Voyagers display a train number (eg: VT2345) yet it
> > is not printed in the GBTT or Virgin freebie TTs.
> >
> > Bit of a waste of time really IMHO.
>
> It is more sad that it was not brought into general use.
> It would be very useful, especially for reservations.
>


We've already got headcodes as unique (or almost-unique) identifiers, 
though.

-- 
Andrew

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:20:46 GMT someone who may be "Andrew Bell"
 wrote this:-


>We've already got headcodes as unique (or almost-unique) identifiers, 
>though.


Using all five characters of the "four character" headcode [1]
should provide a unique identifier for all trains that seats can be
reserved on (though no doubt plenty of people will come up with
exceptions). Presumably Virgin wanted to differentiate themselves
from the "bad old railway", after all they appear to want people to
think of their vehicles as ground hugging aeroplanes (though why
they would want people to think of a train in terms of an inferior
form of public transport is something I can't fathom).

Does the "Virgin number" relate to the headcode in any way?


[1] I remember reading that the fifth character is the former BR
Region that the train originates in, but this tends to only be used
by computers and not displayed to staff often.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:15:50 +0100, David Hansen wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[....]

> Using all five characters of the "four character" headcode [1]
[...]
> [1] I remember reading that the fifth character is the former BR
> Region that the train originates in, but this tends to only be used
> by computers and not displayed to staff often.


Six (or ten!) characters, not five, and you're right that most staff
don't see them. In fact the majority of operating staff probably don't
even know that the four figures train ID numbers they see used in
publications such as the WTT, notices and on diagrams aren't actually
the full train ID number.

Even Controls don't necessarily get the full data:

>-> 28/02/03 10:21
>-> 1V12 Failed Wilnecote Dn
>-> Advised by Saltley PSB that driver of 1V12 unit 1701512 is a
>-> complete failure and will require assistance
>-> 1O14/1K14/1V39 stood behind


Further in when the actual delays are shown (on the copy I was given,
being the driver on 1V12 with the totally dead 170), some of the
"responsible trains" are shown with just 4 fig. IDs, and others with
10, such as "441V18ME28", which to me (and most other staff) would
simply be 1V18. I don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the
ME28 bit.

FWIW, the total delay minutes of that little failure were 1,914 (382
direct, 1,532 reactionary), for a failure lasting 50 minutes from 0950
until we were dragged out of the way at 1040...

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:15:50 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>Does the "Virgin number" relate to the headcode in any way?


I don't believe so.  The first number, though, is a route code, which
strikes me as a very sensible addition.

VT aren't the only ones - the MML and probably the HT Meridians also
show ML/HT-prefixed train numbers.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:15:50 +0100, David Hansen wrote:


> they appear to want people to think of their vehicles as ground
> hugging aeroplanes (though why they would want people to think of a
> train in terms of an inferior form of public transport is something I
> can't fathom).


Air travel is undeniably cheaper (pence per mile to the end user),
quicker and safer (fatalities per passenger-mile) than rail travel, so
what measure are you using to categorise air travel as inferior to rail?
(Not that I disagree, but I'd like to know if it is something
measurable.)
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683684.html
(53103 (Class 116) at Lichfield City, 13 Jun 1985)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:22:14 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Air travel is undeniably cheaper (pence per mile to the end user),
>quicker and safer (fatalities per passenger-mile) than rail travel, so
>what measure are you using to categorise air travel as inferior to rail?


Passenger comfort, presumably.

That said, per passenger mile is a poor measure to compare rail and
air safety, as most air accidents occur during takeoff and landing.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:20:46 GMT, "Andrew Bell" 
wrote:


>
>We've already got headcodes as unique (or almost-unique) identifiers, 
>though.


But these have not been visible for the last 25 years or so are
useless both for the travelling public and station staff.  
-- 
Peter Lawrence

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:15:50 +0100, David Hansen
>  wrote:
> 
>>Does the "Virgin number" relate to the headcode in any way?
> 
> I don't believe so.  The first number, though, is a route code, which
> strikes me as a very sensible addition.
> 
> VT aren't the only ones - the MML and probably the HT Meridians also
> show ML/HT-prefixed train numbers.


I think GNER might too... On the reservation cards yesterday I noticed 
that cards for the 1105 Leeds-KGX had "GR1630" whereas the 1405 
KGX-Leeds had "GR2360" on them.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:22:14 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
 wrote this:-


>Air travel is undeniably cheaper (pence per mile to the end user),


Depends on the type of ticket. If one compares the cheapest
aeroplane ticket with the most expensive railway ticket then this is
the case.


>quicker


That depends on the journey.


>and safer (fatalities per passenger-mile) than rail travel,


That depends on which figures one looks at. As has been said, the
relatively safe bit of flying between the two dangerous bits tends
to distort figures expressed by distance.


>so
>what measure are you using to categorise air travel as inferior to rail?


Having to go somewhere inconvenient to get on and off the aeroplane.
Having to turn up an hour or so before getting on the aeroplane.
So-called security stuff. Lack of space. Often being forced to take
a passport for journies within the UK. Delays and other
unreliability far worse than on the railways. Landing in a different
country to the one you thought you would. More vulnerable to
weather, especially the little aeroplanes that do passenger flights
around Scotland. These are many, but not all, the reasons why
aeroplanes are inferior to the railways.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:22:14 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>wrote:
>
>>Air travel is undeniably cheaper (pence per mile to the end user),
>>quicker and safer (fatalities per passenger-mile) than rail travel, so
>>what measure are you using to categorise air travel as inferior to rail?
>
>Passenger comfort, presumably.
>
>That said, per passenger mile is a poor measure to compare rail and
>air safety, as most air accidents occur during takeoff and landing.



On the other hand, the average railway journey is probably very short
by comparison to the average flight.

"Mark Morton"  wrote in message 
news:3lr7v3F141sccU1@individual.net...

> Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:15:50 +0100, David Hansen
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Does the "Virgin number" relate to the headcode in any way?
>>
>> I don't believe so.  The first number, though, is a route code, which
>> strikes me as a very sensible addition.
>>
>> VT aren't the only ones - the MML and probably the HT Meridians also
>> show ML/HT-prefixed train numbers.
>
> I think GNER might too... On the reservation cards yesterday I noticed 
> that cards for the 1105 Leeds-KGX had "GR1630" whereas the 1405 KGX-Leeds 
> had "GR2360" on them.


and they are 1X23 and 1X36.

KW

Peter Lawrence (pj.lawrence@ntlworld.com) said:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:20:46 GMT, "Andrew Bell"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > We've already got headcodes as unique (or
> > almost-unique) identifiers, though.
>
> But these have not been visible for the last 25 years or
> so are useless both for the travelling public and station
> staff.


It would still be possible to make them visible again. After all, the 
public would be equally unfamiliar with a headcode style id or a virgin 
style id.

-- 
Andrew

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:31:31 +0100, Mark Morton
 wrote:


>I think GNER might too... On the reservation cards yesterday I noticed 
>that cards for the 1105 Leeds-KGX had "GR1630" whereas the 1405 
>KGX-Leeds had "GR2360" on them.


Ah, maybe it *is* in NRS, then.

ATOC - can we have it on reservation tickets and in HAFAS, please?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:28:35 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>Further in when the actual delays are shown (on the copy I was given,
>being the driver on 1V12 with the totally dead 170), some of the
>"responsible trains" are shown with just 4 fig. IDs, and others with
>10, such as "441V18ME28", which to me (and most other staff) would
>simply be 1V18. I don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the
>ME28 bit.


M is presumably London Midland Region, the letter for the former
region following the best known four digits. No idea about the rest.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Chris Tolley wrote:


> Air travel is undeniably cheaper (pence per mile to the end user),
> quicker and safer (fatalities per passenger-mile) than rail travel, so
> what measure are you using to categorise air travel as inferior to rail?


Comfort and convenience?

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:00:43 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:22:14 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley

>>quicker

> That depends on the journey.


I beg to differ. Except for helicopters and Harriers, typical planes
won't stay in the air unless they are going forwards more quickly than
typical trains.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683855.html
(159 019 at Basingstoke, 26 Jan 1999)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:56:14 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>>>quicker
>
>> That depends on the journey.
>
>I beg to differ. Except for helicopters and Harriers, typical planes
>won't stay in the air unless they are going forwards more quickly than
>typical trains.


It's the end-to-end journey time that counts, and you should know
that. If for example you're travelling from central London to central
Manchester, you need to travel miles out of town to an airport, check
in 1-2 hours before your flight, etc, so by the time your
faster-than-train plane leaves the runway you could already have
arrived at your destination by train.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:56:14 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>I beg to differ. Except for helicopters and Harriers, typical planes
>won't stay in the air unless they are going forwards more quickly than
>typical trains.


Generally speaking, trains go from town/city centre to town/city
centre with a few exceptions.  Generally speaking, planes go from the
middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere.

This is OK if your journey requirement fits the latter, but adds time
over the former if not.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Neil Williams wrote:


> Generally speaking, trains go from town/city centre to town/city
> centre with a few exceptions.  Generally speaking, planes go from the
> middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere.


I think the number of times I ever wanted to be at or near Glasgow 
Central, or Birmingham New Street, or London Euston, is about as small 
as the number of times I wanted to be at or near Glasgow airport, 
Birmingham Airport, or Heathrow (or Luton Airport for that matter), to 
take a few examples.  In every case I'd need to connect to some local 
transport to my real destination, for either mode of transport.

So with both modes it really stands or falls by the ease of connecting 
into the local PT network at each end.




> 
> This is OK if your journey requirement fits the latter, but adds time
> over the former if not.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 

In article , Ross 
 writes

>Six (or ten!) characters, not five, and you're right that most staff
>don't see them.
[...]
>Further in when the actual delays are shown (on the copy I was given,
>being the driver on 1V12 with the totally dead 170), some of the
>"responsible trains" are shown with just 4 fig. IDs, and others with
>10, such as "441V18ME28", which to me (and most other staff) would
>simply be 1V18. I don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the
>ME28 bit.


The timetabling information I happen to have gives each train a 6 
character reference code. In the summer of 2003, 1V18 was:
     C45217  Monday to Friday
     C50090  Saturday
     C55117  Sunday until July 13th
     C55116  Sunday from July 20th

The corresponding codes for 1V12 were C55093, C55092, C55095, and 
C55094. The other C5509x codes are used by 1V11 and 1V13. These codes 
are nearer to unique but not completely so. The first letter can be C, 
G, H, L, P, S, W, or Y. These are regional in some sense I haven't fully 
analysed (at a guess, they're related to the old six regions: C = LMR, G 
= ScR, L = AR, P = WR, W = SR, Y = ER, with H and S being some odd 
workings).

There's also a 9-digit code which is *not* unique. The M-F version of 
1V18 is 122333003, but so are many others, including all instances of 
1V12. [The Sa one is 122277003, and the Su one is 125429000.]

Sometimes these codes change en-route: 1P75 from Stansted to Norwich 
starts as 122268003 and changes to 122269003 at Ely. Nottingham is 
another place where they change.

But the 44 and ME28 mean nothing to me either.

-- 
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:

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:22:25 +0100, asdf wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:56:14 GMT, Chris Tolley 
> wrote:
> 
>>I beg to differ. Except for helicopters and Harriers, typical planes
>>won't stay in the air unless they are going forwards more quickly than
>>typical trains.
> 
> It's the end-to-end journey time that counts, and you should know
> that.


Yes, it is, but when I wrote what I wrote in the original posting, I was
thinking (trains do 125, planes do 400). I should not have been so
terse.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632761.html
(09 001 at Clapham Junction, 21 Sep 1980)

Ross wrote:

> Six (or ten!) characters, not five, and you're right that most staff
> don't see them. In fact the majority of operating staff probably don't
> even know that the four figures train ID numbers they see used in
> publications such as the WTT, notices and on diagrams aren't actually
> the full train ID number.
>
> Even Controls don't necessarily get the full data:
> >-> 28/02/03 10:21
> >-> 1V12 Failed Wilnecote Dn
> >-> Advised by Saltley PSB that driver of 1V12 unit 1701512 is a
> >-> complete failure and will require assistance
> >-> 1O14/1K14/1V39 stood behind
>
> Further in when the actual delays are shown (on the copy I was given,
> being the driver on 1V12 with the totally dead 170), some of the
> "responsible trains" are shown with just 4 fig. IDs, and others with
> 10, such as "441V18ME28", which to me (and most other staff) would
> simply be 1V18. I don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the
> ME28 bit.
>



44 is the first 2 digits of the origin STANOX location code for Lincoln
(see http://deaves47.users.btopenworld.com/CRS/CRSl.htm )
1V18 is the signalling Train ID
M means 'Mandatory' (passenger & parcels WTT train)
E is a unique identifier (necessary for duplicate train IDs)
28 is the day of the month.

HTH
Dysgraphyk

--
156 Super Sprinter DMU 
http://dysgraphyk.madasafish.com/156/ train)

"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in message 
news:yEh4$Pgnib+CFw1T@romana.davros.org...
<SNIP>


>
> But the 44 and ME28 mean nothing to me either.



As "44" corresponds to the International Phone code for the UK and seems to 
be always present. Could this be a country identifier in a possibly European 
system of notation?

Just a thought!

KW

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

>
> The timetabling information I happen to have gives each train a 6
> character reference code. In the summer of 2003, 1V18 was:
>      C45217  Monday to Friday
>      C50090  Saturday
>      C55117  Sunday until July 13th
>      C55116  Sunday from July 20th
>
> The corresponding codes for 1V12 were C55093, C55092, C55095, and
> C55094. The other C5509x codes are used by 1V11 and 1V13. These codes
> are nearer to unique but not completely so. The first letter can be C,
> G, H, L, P, S, W, or Y. These are regional in some sense I haven't fully
> analysed (at a guess, they're related to the old six regions: C = LMR, G
> = ScR, L = AR, P = WR, W = SR, Y = ER, with H and S being some odd
> workings).


These are train planning Unique IDs for each train schedule in the
Train Service Database.

They are based on the former regional Train planning offices (which
have now closed or moved) where the train schedule originated.
C = Crewe
G = Glasgow
L = Liverpool St
P = Paddington
W = Waterloo
Y = York



> There's also a 9-digit code which is *not* unique. The M-F version of
> 1V18 is 122333003, but so are many others, including all instances of
> 1V12. [The Sa one is 122277003, and the Su one is 125429000.]


These are actually Train Service Codes and are 8 digits. The leading
'1' is a separate field.


Dysgraphyk
-- 
156 Super Sprinter DMU 
http://dysgraphyk.madasafish.com/156/

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:31:31 +0100, Mark Morton
>  wrote:
>
> >I think GNER might too... On the reservation cards yesterday I noticed
> >that cards for the 1105 Leeds-KGX had "GR1630" whereas the 1405
> >KGX-Leeds had "GR2360" on them.
>
> Ah, maybe it *is* in NRS, then.
>
> ATOC - can we have it on reservation tickets and in HAFAS, please?


Yes, it is the train's 'Retail Service ID' used in the new National
Reservation system.

Unfortunatley the numbers are allocated by the TOC and do not appear in
the Train Service database, so I don't think HAFAS get them.

Also - I don't think the first 2 digits necessarilly relate to the
route, even though they appear on Station Information Screens as 'route
code'.


Dysgraphyk
-- 
156 Super Sprinter DMU 
http://dysgraphyk.madasafish.com/156/

On 10 Aug 2005 05:03:32 -0700, Dysgraphyk wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
[...]
> > Further in when the actual delays are shown (on the copy I was given,
> > being the driver on 1V12 with the totally dead 170), some of the
> > "responsible trains" are shown with just 4 fig. IDs, and others with
> > 10, such as "441V18ME28", which to me (and most other staff) would
> > simply be 1V18. I don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the
> > ME28 bit.
> 
> 44 is the first 2 digits of the origin STANOX location code for Lincoln
> (see http://deaves47.users.btopenworld.com/CRS/CRSl.htm )


Y'know, I was going to say "Can't be, 1V10 was our only 1Vxx working"
but I've looked through the printout and you're right, it's the 09:12
Lincoln - Cardiff, which I guess must only have run for one season as
it would otherwise likely have stuck in my memory from doing the
diagrams. Either that or my mind really is addled, of course! ;-)

Incident 505056 (of 28/02/03) if it's still on the system and you want
to have a look.



> M means 'Mandatory' (passenger & parcels WTT train)
> E is a unique identifier (necessary for duplicate train IDs)
> 28 is the day of the month.


Thanks for explaining those.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

In article , 
Dysgraphyk  writes

>These are train planning Unique IDs for each train schedule in the
>Train Service Database.

Thanks.

>They are based on the former regional Train planning offices (which
>have now closed or moved) where the train schedule originated.
>C = Crewe
>G = Glasgow
>L = Liverpool St
>P = Paddington
>W = Waterloo
>Y = York


What about S and H?


>> There's also a 9-digit code which is *not* unique. The M-F version of
>> 1V18 is 122333003, but so are many others, including all instances of
>> 1V12. [The Sa one is 122277003, and the Su one is 125429000.]
>
>These are actually Train Service Codes and are 8 digits. The leading
>'1' is a separate field.


Oh?

What's the difference between a train planning code and a train service 
code?

-- 
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:

On 10 Aug 2005 05:35:58 -0700, "Dysgraphyk" 
wrote:


>Also - I don't think the first 2 digits necessarilly relate to the
>route, even though they appear on Station Information Screens as 'route
>code'.


They do for VT, but possibly not for others.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

> In article , Ross
>  writes
> >Six (or ten!) characters, not five, and you're right that most staff
> >don't see them.
> [...]
> >Further in when the actual delays are shown (on the copy I was given,
> >being the driver on 1V12 with the totally dead 170), some of the
> >"responsible trains" are shown with just 4 fig. IDs, and others with
> >10, such as "441V18ME28", which to me (and most other staff) would
> >simply be 1V18. I don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the
> >ME28 bit.
>
> The timetabling information I happen to have gives each train a 6
> character reference code. In the summer of 2003, 1V18 was:
>      C45217  Monday to Friday
>      C50090  Saturday
>      C55117  Sunday until July 13th
>      C55116  Sunday from July 20th
>
> The corresponding codes for 1V12 were C55093, C55092, C55095, and
> C55094. The other C5509x codes are used by 1V11 and 1V13. These codes
> are nearer to unique but not completely so. The first letter can be C,
> G, H, L, P, S, W, or Y. These are regional in some sense I haven't fully
> analysed (at a guess, they're related to the old six regions: C = LMR, G
> = ScR, L = AR, P = WR, W = SR, Y = ER, with H and S being some odd
> workings).
>
> There's also a 9-digit code which is *not* unique. The M-F version of
> 1V18 is 122333003, but so are many others, including all instances of
> 1V12. [The Sa one is 122277003, and the Su one is 125429000.]
>
> Sometimes these codes change en-route: 1P75 from Stansted to Norwich
> starts as 122268003 and changes to 122269003 at Ely. Nottingham is
> another place where they change.
>
> But the 44 and ME28 mean nothing to me either.
>




I was confused before this wonderful piece of 'analysis'. In addition
to the 1S56 headcode and the VT2345 code on the door this 9 digit code
seems to have no meaning at all, so why the hell do we need all these
numbers?


Now I am totally bamboozeled.


Wouldn't be so simpler if the train was known by just one identifier?
It works in Europe, but, hey, so does the railway system.

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

> In article ,
> Dysgraphyk  writes

> >These are train planning Unique IDs for each train schedule in the
> >Train Service Database.
> >
> >They are based on the former regional Train planning offices (which
> >have now closed or moved) where the train schedule originated.
> >C = Crewe
> >G = Glasgow
> >L = Liverpool St
> >P = Paddington
> >W = Waterloo
> >Y = York


You may notice these letters also relate to the WTT sections.


> What about S and H?


There are some new prefixes added recently. I'm not 100% sure about
these:
B = Midlands freight
H = Northern freight
R = ???
S = Scottish freight
X = Southern freight

The old prefixes are also still in use for freight.


> >> There's also a 9-digit code which is *not* unique. The M-F version of
> >> 1V18 is 122333003, but so are many others, including all instances of
> >> 1V12. [The Sa one is 122277003, and the Su one is 125429000.]
> >
> >These are actually Train Service Codes and are 8 digits. The leading
> >'1' is a separate field.


25429000 is the ATW Birmingham - Cardiff route service group
22333003 is the CT Nottingham - Cardiff route service group
22277003 is the CT Nottingham - Lincoln route service group

Lincoln - Cardiff trains would have a change of code at Nottingham


> What's the difference between a train planning code and a train service
> code?


The Train Service Codes identify the train operator and service group
for performance statistics etc.


Dysgraphyk
-- 
156 Super Sprinter DMU 
http://dysgraphyk.madasafish.com/156/