Trains missing from Journey Planners.

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

I contacted Network Rail regarding the ongoing issues with the Integrated Train Planning System and decided to bypass the usual 'Customer Service' route and instead went looking for a response from their 'Press Relations' department. I'm including both my e-mail and the response in full with slight editing to protect my and NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s respondee's anonimity. The response from NR came with a pretty dire warning regarding publishing the content, but on reading what they had to say I can't see why. Aside from the issues raised I'm impressed by the speedy response that Network Rail gave me.

Dear *****,

I write to you to enquire as to the progress Network Rail are making in sorting out the issues with the Integrated Train Planning System.

I contribute to an online forum for passengers of First Great Western and we have had numerous posts and queries regarding FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services that are missing or incorrectly listed on Online Journey Planners, 'Live Departures' and TRUST^▸ (Train Running System TOPS)/TOPS^▸ (Total Operations Processing System).

A statement I've received from FGW highlights their frustration with the problems with the ITPS, leaving passengers unable to book cheaper advance purchase tickets for longer distance services. They've also had numerous local services that are either missing or only showing on 'Live Departures' with timings and final destinations that are totally out of kilter with published timetables.

Could you provide me with a statement regarding the technical issues currently faced by Network Rail and its operation of the ITPS and what efforts are being made to rectify the problem. I've gleaned a few bits of information from the specialist press and by trawling the web, but I've seen no statements from Network Rail or individual TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), save for one update on FGW's website which directed customers to National Rail Enquiries - a fruitless exercise as it turned out - NRES^▸ (National Rail Enquiry Service) are as much in the dark as the travelling public.

Yours faithfully,

****** ******

Bristol.


Hi ******

Just getting back to you in response to the timetable issues we^ve had with implementing our new system.

Getting the new route planning system up and running was a massive undertaking.  The system has to coordinate the efficient running of 24,000 train services, moving at different speeds and varying stopping patterns. The system went through thorough testing before launch and our train planning team worked around the clock to iron out issues as they arose.

However, owing to the sheer complexity of the system some glitches did not come to light until the system went live and some services were affected as a result. We will continue to work to resolve any outstanding issues and apologise to anyone whose journeys have been affected.

Thanks

Regards

*****

***** ********

Network Rail

90 York Way

London N1 9AG

[Worcester_Passenger]

I'm unconvinced.

The real skill that's involved in a big database like this one is not getting it to work in the first place, but the ongoing accurate maintenance of the data.

By comparison, the database that's in a GPS's route planner is an easy matter. It's vulnerable to (1) a road link not being in the data or (2) a road link being connected to the wrong place. The latter are known as 'tunnel links' in the trade - lots of traffic ends up wanting to use an erroneous link that runs from Bristol to Newcastle and takes 5 minutes. Think of the secret passages on the Cluedo board. There's ways that you can test the database for (2) by looking at link speeds and by plotting the network as a map. Errors of type (1) are more difficult to find.

The rail equivalent is two orders of magnitude more complicated. First off, it's a network in space and time, so you can have tunnel links in the time dimension as well. But worse, it changes every weekend. That requires a lot more careful work to (1) enter the data correctly in the first place, and (2) correct the errors that will inevitably appear. Neither of the examples that this thread has been concerned with (the 06:47 Worcester - Weymouth, and the 06:00 Exeter - Bristol Parkway) are affected by the weekend changes issue, but they should have been spotted and corrected by now, six weeks into the Summer timetable.

Those of you who are paranoid might (not) want to imagine what would happen if some hacker started fiddling with this database. Given the amount of physical security that you see round signalling installations, I do hope that there's an equivalent level of electronic security round this data. OK, it's not safety critical, but you could destroy staff and passenger faith in the accuracy of information very quickly.

[JayMac]

Well... given the opportunity and the nous, I happily hack into the 'database' to correct the anomalies with the 0647 ex WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains)! I might even consider adding a couple of Chippenham-Westbury services..... 

[JayMac]

From the Daily Telegraph:

Passengers turned up for non-existent train services after Network Rail blunder

Passengers have turned up for non-existent trains because of the botched introduction of this summer^s railway timetable, it emerged last night.

It has left Network Rail the threat of a multi-million fine after the rail regulator ruled that the company, which runs the country^s track infrastructure, was in breach of its licence.

The problems centre on the creation of a new computer system which was supposed to integrate the timetables of all 19 major train operators in May. A series of faults meant that pocket timetables were not produced in time, passengers were unable to book tickets on the internet for some services while others just disappeared into the ether.

^Train operators websites were saying services were running, when they weren^t,^ said Jo de Bank, spokesman for London TravelWatch. There were times when trains, which had been cancelled owing because of engineering works, were still shown as running. We even had people turning up for services which didn^t exist, even though they appeared on the national rail inquiries and train operators websites. They should have tested the whole system. Network Rail did not think about passengers properly.^

A spokesman for the Association of Train Operating Companies laid bare the chaos which some passengers faced.

^Network Rail^s problems with the introduction of its new planning system impacted on operators, leaving some unable to make trains available for passengers to book tickets in advance. Train companies have applied pressure for Network Rail to make rapid improvements, whilst working hard to minimise the effect on passengers.^

The punitive action planned by the regulator is t is a fresh blow for Network Rail, whose directors shared ^2.36 million in bonuses last year. It comes just over two years after the company was fined ^14 million for failing to complete Christmas engineering works on time.

Bill Emery ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) chief executive said the introduction of the new computerised planning system should bring long term benefits to passengers and train operators.

^But the introduction earlier this year has been most unsatisfactory. Our extensive investigation found that there had been a marked failure to consider properly, mitigate, and communicate the risks of initial problems affecting operators and passengers.^

A Network Rail spokesman admitted mistakes had been made.

^But the company responded quickly to implement a wide reaching action plan to correct the teething problems experienced. There are lessons to be learned from updating such decades old railway industry systems as the industry moves forward, pushing modernisation and innovation for the benefit of passengers and freight users.^

Coucher's last hurrah? 

[Chris from Nailsea]

See the Financial Times

(Copyright restrictions mean I cannot quote the text here: you'll just have to follow the link.) 

[ChrisB]

For review purposes, large chunks can be quoted.....

[SDS]

Criticism, review or parody if I remember rightly.

[grahame]

See the Financial Times

(Copyright restrictions mean I cannot quote the text here: you'll just have to follow the link.) 

For review purposes, large chunks can be quoted.....

Criticism, review or parody if I remember rightly.

Let me be zealously precis(ish) here ... as we're looking at a legal aspect of running / hosting a site like this.

Where information is available in public, then I agree with ChrisB and SDS pad.  However, the Financial Times's web site and articles are hidden behind a registration (which I have not followed through myself) and they may have added - or attempted to add - other conditions to the quoting or reuse of the material that's there.  In my work, I sometime have to sign some sort of "NDA^▸ (Non-Disclosure Agreement)" or nondisclosure agreement and that restricts what I can do with various bits of information / data that I come to know ...

To be strictly accurate, the extra restrictions that concern Chris f N may not be copyright restrictions but restrictions placed on him as part of a contract between himself and the Financial Times (but that would have been an awful lot to write).   Whether the terms could / would be upheld in a court of law if Chris had published here and [he / the site operator / the hosting company] had been sued by the FT, I don't know ... but I'm delighted he took the course of action he did in providing a link, as it means that the article can be available to anyone who wants to see it, and we keep ourselves focused on our objectives - rail / public transport related, and not the finer aspects of contract and copyright law.

[paul7575]

Another option, assuming the story is about the ITPS fine, is why not just quote the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) press release, rather than the FT analysis of it? - or possibly the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)?

(Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)-FINE-REGARDING-ITPS-15c2/SearchCategoryID-2.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/NETWORK-RAIL-RESPONDS-TO-ORR-FINE-REGARDING-ITPS-15c2/SearchCategoryID-2.aspx

Paul

[Chris from Nailsea]

- or possibly the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)?

Possibly, I would have done so - but the BBC did not cover that story. 

[onthecushions]

Obliquely relevant.

Today I saw a Hull Trains adelante(?), c11.15, (Wed. 3rd November), down relief, approaching Ealing Broadway.

Diversion or route learning?

OTC

[SDS]

Neither.
FHT still uses OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) for some things. I dunno if its for their exams or major overhauls. You will regularly see 180s at OOC.

Saw that 180 in OOC today as well.