In having to advise someone tonight which train to jump on for
Colchester out of the 2248 and 2300 from Liverpool Street, my opinion
was that a train in the platform is worth two in the timetable.  In
this case, get on the first one, because they aren't likely to overtake
at that time of night.

But then I check the public timetable.  The former departs Witham at
2335 and arrives Colchester at 2357.  The latter departs Witham at 2342
and arrives Colchester at 2356.

This can't be physically possible because, after Witham, there is
nowhere to overtake before Colchester.

So how does the public timetable end up showing something impossible?
Is it some kind of misplaced Charter Minutes exercise because the
former terminates at Colchester?

MIG wrote:

> In having to advise someone tonight which train to jump on for
> Colchester out of the 2248 and 2300 from Liverpool Street, my opinion
> was that a train in the platform is worth two in the timetable.  In
> this case, get on the first one, because they aren't likely to overtake
> at that time of night.
>
> But then I check the public timetable.  The former departs Witham at
> 2335 and arrives Colchester at 2357.  The latter departs Witham at 2342
> and arrives Colchester at 2356.
>
> This can't be physically possible because, after Witham, there is
> nowhere to overtake before Colchester.
>
> So how does the public timetable end up showing something impossible?
> Is it some kind of misplaced Charter Minutes exercise because the
> former terminates at Colchester?



I note that trains which stop at Marks Tey and go beyond Colchester
take 8 minutes to arrive at Colchester.  The 2248 from Liverpool Street
takes 12 minutes from Marks Tey to Colchester.

This is clearly a case of charter minutes changing the laws of physics.

MIG wrote:


>In having to advise someone tonight which train to jump on for
>Colchester out of the 2248 and 2300 from Liverpool Street, my opinion
>was that a train in the platform is worth two in the timetable.  In
>this case, get on the first one, because they aren't likely to overtake
>at that time of night.
>
>But then I check the public timetable.  The former departs Witham at
>2335 and arrives Colchester at 2357.  The latter departs Witham at 2342
>and arrives Colchester at 2356.


According to the Witham departures board (you'll have to be quick!):
<http://www.livedepartureboards.co.uk/ldb/train.aspx?T=WITHAME+&J=3872318&R=0>
the 2357 arrival at Colchester is expected to arrive at 2351. It
doesn't show up on the board for Colchester, though!

Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: R.E.M. - I Believe (from the album 'Life's Rich Pageant')

"Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message 
news:l95vg1tfu923dro4jlq1c61ph0h1t9sj0d@4ax.com...

> MIG wrote:
>
>>In having to advise someone tonight which train to jump on for
>>Colchester out of the 2248 and 2300 from Liverpool Street, my opinion
>>was that a train in the platform is worth two in the timetable.  In
>>this case, get on the first one, because they aren't likely to overtake
>>at that time of night.
>>
>>But then I check the public timetable.  The former departs Witham at
>>2335 and arrives Colchester at 2357.  The latter departs Witham at 2342
>>and arrives Colchester at 2356.
>
> According to the Witham departures board (you'll have to be quick!):
> <http://www.livedepartureboards.co.uk/ldb/train.aspx?T=WITHAME+&J=3872318&R=0>
> the 2357 arrival at Colchester is expected to arrive at 2351. It
> doesn't show up on the board for Colchester, though!
>
> Neil Sunderland
> -- 
> Braunton, Devon
> Please observe the Reply-To address.
>
> NP: R.E.M. - I Believe (from the album 'Life's Rich Pageant')



there used to be a train i would travel on that would pull into the 
braintree platform at witham, then would move forward along the loop and 
wait to over taken by a clacton train which we would wait for upto 5 mins 
for. the train used to move out of witham station so a train from braintree 
could also move in. so it was possable to be overtaken after witham but only 
just out side to station.
andrew

MIG wrote:


> Is it some kind of misplaced Charter Minutes exercise because the
> former terminates at Colchester?


   I've noticed a lot of terminating trains that have a good few minutes 
added to what you would expect, or alternatively, which appear to be 
running very early according to the LDB. I suspect it's common practice 
- aren't penalties only applied on arrival at destination?

Stephen Hughes wrote:

> MIG wrote:
>
> > Is it some kind of misplaced Charter Minutes exercise because the
> > former terminates at Colchester?
>
>    I've noticed a lot of terminating trains that have a good few minutes
> added to what you would expect, or alternatively, which appear to be
> running very early according to the LDB. I suspect it's common practice
> - aren't penalties only applied on arrival at destination?



Exactly.  And in this case they advertise a final arrival time that is
later than physically possible* in order to claim an on-time arrival
when running late all the way.  This really shows up the nonsense of
the exercise (and the non-believability of all performance statistics).


*If trains are running to advertised times.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1125139101.842274.147580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Stephen Hughes wrote:
>> MIG wrote:
>>
>> > Is it some kind of misplaced Charter Minutes exercise because the
>> > former terminates at Colchester?
>>
>>    I've noticed a lot of terminating trains that have a good few minutes
>> added to what you would expect, or alternatively, which appear to be
>> running very early according to the LDB. I suspect it's common practice
>> - aren't penalties only applied on arrival at destination?
>
>
> Exactly.  And in this case they advertise a final arrival time that is
> later than physically possible* in order to claim an on-time arrival
> when running late all the way.  This really shows up the nonsense of
> the exercise (and the non-believability of all performance statistics).
>
>
> *If trains are running to advertised times.
>


Penalty payments are not made just at the end of the journey. Why advertise 
a train to arrive at say 1300, when every day due to congestion
or whatever, arrives at 1305? Better to advertise later and arrive earlier 
than the other way round surely? Maybe it is a fix, but the timetable
is meant to give a guide to services...

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, James S wrote:


> Penalty payments are not made just at the end of the journey. Why 
> advertise a train to arrive at say 1300, when every day due to 
> congestion or whatever, arrives at 1305? Better to advertise later 
> and arrive earlier than the other way round surely?


That depends on who the timetable is for!  A while back, I went to 
meet a woman friend who was arriving on a specific train, relying on 
the timetable for details of its arrival time, and got an earful for 
leaving her trolling around the terminal station for 20mins before I 
turned up - the train had arrived over 25mins early, relative to the 
published timetable.

>Penalty payments are not made just at the end of the journey. Why advertise
>a train to arrive at say 1300, when every day due to congestion
>or whatever, arrives at 1305? Better to advertise later and arrive earlier
>than the other way round surely? Maybe it is a fix, but the timetable
>is meant to give a guide to services...



That's fine, but there's no point in then revising the terminating
train arrival to 1305, but still showing the the train that must be
stuck behind it as arriving at 1304.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:49:12 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, James S wrote:
>
>> Penalty payments are not made just at the end of the journey. Why 
>> advertise a train to arrive at say 1300, when every day due to 
>> congestion or whatever, arrives at 1305? Better to advertise later 
>> and arrive earlier than the other way round surely?
>
>That depends on who the timetable is for!  A while back, I went to 
>meet a woman friend who was arriving on a specific train, relying on 
>the timetable for details of its arrival time, and got an earful for 
>leaving her trolling around the terminal station for 20mins before I 
>turned up - the train had arrived over 25mins early, relative to the 
>published timetable.


I went to pick up my wife from her planned train, only to find that
she had been kicking her heels for 10 minutes, as she caught a late
running one and arrived early. It's the old story. A train in the
platform is worth two indicated later.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

DERWENT Re: Overtaking Implied in Timetable When Not Possible
 Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:19:46 +0100, "James S"
 


>
>"MIG"  wrote in message 
>news:1125139101.842274.147580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Stephen Hughes wrote:
>>> MIG wrote:
>>>
>>> > Is it some kind of misplaced Charter Minutes exercise because the
>>> > former terminates at Colchester?
>>>
>>>    I've noticed a lot of terminating trains that have a good few minutes
>>> added to what you would expect, or alternatively, which appear to be
>>> running very early according to the LDB. I suspect it's common practice
>>> - aren't penalties only applied on arrival at destination?
>>
>>
>> Exactly.  And in this case they advertise a final arrival time that is
>> later than physically possible* in order to claim an on-time arrival
>> when running late all the way.  This really shows up the nonsense of
>> the exercise (and the non-believability of all performance statistics).
>>
>>
>> *If trains are running to advertised times.
>>
>
>Penalty payments are not made just at the end of the journey.


They are to season ticket holders. For regular tickets you need to be
substantially late to trigger any payment, and then the punters have
to claim it back in vouchers. Season tickets holders get their
discounts based upon service performance numbers, percentages of
trains run and percentages of trains within 5 minutes of on time, etc.

It would be far better if the system measured all arrivals at all
stations as this would mean there would be more incentive to run on
time all the time.

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

PRAR wrote:

> They are to season ticket holders. For regular tickets you need to be
> substantially late to trigger any payment, and then the punters have
> to claim it back in vouchers. 


Or in the case of One (who's timetable set off this discussion) it 
doesn't matter, as Season Ticket Holders get sweet FA under this system, 
as it was abolished.

PRAR  writes:


> It would be far better if the system measured all arrivals at all
> stations as this would mean there would be more incentive to run on
> time all the time.


Or even if it measured the performance of services between the 2
stations on the season ticket. This would, of course, be much more
straightforward for cases where the 2 stations are on the same line
than where there are a multitude of permitted routes between them.