Railways: Draft Manual

[si404]

- Where service patterns differ by time of day and/or day of week, mapping should follow weekday midday service, with the exception that tracks which only see service part time should be mapped regardless of when their part time service is

To expand on this...

1 thing I've found is that some British operators have infrequent (say 1 to 4 times a day) extensions of long distance services to places that they wouldn't otherwise service, but are wholly concurrent with other operator's services (or even their own - eg GWR to Paignton to give a direct London service, but most trains are stoppers as part of the 'Devon Metro'). Do I implement a train-every-two-hours cut off for this? Certainly it would help with reducing concurrencies (cf Avanti West Coast to Blackpool, or TransPennine's Liverpool-Glasgow services). Obviously services using unique bits of track would get added (which I need to implement when it comes to some peak urban services), as would stuff like the Caledonian Sleeper that is, by nature, infrequent service.

London North Eastern Railway's wikipedia page implements this well, splitting its service table into 'Regular Services' (hourly or 2-hourly), and 'Irregular services' (1 to 3 trains per day). CrossCountry's wikipedia page removes them from the service table and lists them in text form.

I don't know what the frequency cut-off for service being 'limited' is on Project Mapping's map (used by National Rail), but it strikes me as perhaps a little too low as a cut off.


Also, if we're going by midday service, why did this get implemented?

This is fairly easy to resolve using some local knowledge of the administrative history: all the lines which pass through Newark Broad Street can be mapped as terminating in Hoboken, as historically they all did before the introduction of "MidTown Direct" service on these lines.

The only trains on the Morristown and Montclair-Boontown lines that go to Hoboken are the ones that extend beyond the electric network (the Gladstone branch usually goes to Hoboken though) and a couple of peak trains.
https://content.njtransit.com/sites/default/files/ME-WKDY-042323.pdf
https://content.njtransit.com/sites/default/files/MC-WKDY-042323.pdf

This strikes me as an odd move - more based in nostalgia than actual service. The solution done on the LIRR to reduce the concurrencies (most frequent wins) strikes me as a good one. The most-frequent terminus for two of the three Newark Broad Street lines is NY Penn and so they should go there. If you took a Hoboken train, you can map it as using the Gladstone branch - just as mapping a Huntington - Grand Central journey on a direct train the other side of the Hudson needs to use one of the routes going between Jamaica and Grand Central.

This at least is the situation where you only have branching in one direction. Where you have branching in two directions I don't think every single possible service pattern necessarily needs to be mapped (in some cases that could get to be quite a lot) so long as every branch is included in some way. You'll see, for example, the way I've retooled LIRR, I've generally sorted the outward branches between Atlantic, Penn, Grand Central, and LIC based on which one the majority of trains on that branch go to, with a couple branches having both Grand Central and Penn versions because the number of trains to both is near parity.

[michih]

- I added the "Rosto" prefix to stops of the deuros system in the city of Rostock which had only street names before

Do the official station names that appear on signs include "Rostock"? If not, this shouldn't be there.

It depends.... The signs in the field usually have it for the S Bahn services. Timetables do often not have them. the city name is usually also omitted on the displays in the train itself. Official online services where you can book travels have the full name, of course.
There are also station which are served by different systems, e.g. by tram and by regional trains. Tram stations often omit the city name since its superfluous like a stop at an Hauptbahnhof (= main station) which is already a long word.

Dunno.... That's why I asked what's best practise.

[Duke87]

1 thing I've found is that some British operators have infrequent (say 1 to 4 times a day) extensions of long distance services to places that they wouldn't otherwise service, but are wholly concurrent with other operator's services {...}

I don't know what the frequency cut-off for service being 'limited' is on Project Mapping's map (used by National Rail), but it strikes me as perhaps a little too low as a cut off.

I support not mapping the infrequent wholly-concurrent extensions in concept. Where exactly the cutoff should be is a judgment call I don't have a strong opinion on.

Also, if we're going by midday service, why did this get implemented?

This is fairly easy to resolve using some local knowledge of the administrative history: all the lines which pass through Newark Broad Street can be mapped as terminating in Hoboken, as historically they all did before the introduction of "MidTown Direct" service on these lines.

The only trains on the Morristown and Montclair-Boontown lines that go to Hoboken are the ones that extend beyond the electric network (the Gladstone branch usually goes to Hoboken though) and a couple of peak trains.
https://content.njtransit.com/sites/default/files/ME-WKDY-042323.pdf
https://content.njtransit.com/sites/default/files/MC-WKDY-042323.pdf

This strikes me as an odd move - more based in nostalgia than actual service. The solution done on the LIRR to reduce the concurrencies (most frequent wins) strikes me as a good one. The most-frequent terminus for two of the three Newark Broad Street lines is NY Penn and so they should go there. If you took a Hoboken train, you can map it as using the Gladstone branch - just as mapping a Huntington - Grand Central journey on a direct train the other side of the Hudson needs to use one of the routes going between Jamaica and Grand Central.

Honestly... I think you're right about this and I'm going to add that to my list of things to redo. What I have in there for NJT currently does also have the problem that a journey between Newark Broad and Penn (which will be taken by many people) cannot be mapped without using DIV points, and if we're going to hide those that's no bueno.

[the_spui_ninja]

Question on the tiers as I'm starting to draft things up, why are tourist/heritage railroads tier 2? At least in the US they're not very long and function more like a Tier 4/5 type system (as least as I conceptualize it).

[si404]

Question on the tiers as I'm starting to draft things up, why are tourist/heritage railroads tier 2? At least in the US they're not very long and function more like a Tier 4/5 type system (as least as I conceptualize it).

I agree. Unless we're talking Land Cruise stuff like the Orient Express, or the Cross-Australia trains (arguably tier 1 due to their length and limited stops), the ones I can think of are lower tier and fit better in tier 4 or even 5.

[the_spui_ninja]

I'm putting the tourist railroads I'm drafting into tier 2 for now, but I can shift them over easily enough.

[neroute2]

I could see the Grand Canyon Railway being tier 2. Maybe the cutoff should be whether you can get on at either end and off at the other?

The Lookout Mountain Incline is an interesting case in that you're supposed to start at the bottom, but you can get off at the top and walk around the neighborhood before going back down. But if you get on at the top they don't check tickets, so I guess you could use it for transportation if you live up top. Not that it would be in tier 2 anyway, but it's an interesting case to think about.

[si404]

I could see the Grand Canyon Railway being tier 2. Maybe the cutoff should be whether you can get on at either end and off at the other?

The cut off in general, or the cut off for tier 2? The former, certainly, but there's no way something like the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway is above Tier 4, even though you can get off at both ends (a mile apart).

[Duke87]

Question on the tiers as I'm starting to draft things up, why are tourist/heritage railroads tier 2? At least in the US they're not very long and function more like a Tier 4/5 type system (as least as I conceptualize it).

So, the thinking here is that tier 1 and 2 systems are systems that utilize the national railroad network or are built to its specifications while tier 3/4/5 systems are urban rapid transit systems that do not necessarily meet national rail specs.

Tourist/heritage railroads in the US are usually not "urban" in nature and are FRA-regulated the same as commuter railroads and Amtrak are.

And, well, look at the type of equipment they use: fullsize locomotives pulling fullsizes coaches. That resembles what commuter railroads use. It does not resemble a subway, light rail, streetcar, or people move at all.


I would be very against moving heritage railroads down from tier 2 broadly, however if a particular heritage railroad does not meet what I described above (e.g. narrow gauge, smaller equipment) then I could see it being placed in tier 4 or 5 instead.

[neroute2]

I don't think tiers should depend on tracks or equipment. A state-numbered freeway is not the same tier as an Interstate freeway. As with roads, we should classify railways according to their function in the system.

[michih]

I don't think tiers should depend on tracks or equipment. A state-numbered freeway is not the same tier as an Interstate freeway. As with roads, we should classify railways according to their function in the system.

This!

[the_spui_ninja]

Question on the tiers as I'm starting to draft things up, why are tourist/heritage railroads tier 2? At least in the US they're not very long and function more like a Tier 4/5 type system (as least as I conceptualize it).

So, the thinking here is that tier 1 and 2 systems are systems that utilize the national railroad network or are built to its specifications while tier 3/4/5 systems are urban rapid transit systems that do not necessarily meet national rail specs.

Tourist/heritage railroads in the US are usually not "urban" in nature and are FRA-regulated the same as commuter railroads and Amtrak are.

And, well, look at the type of equipment they use: fullsize locomotives pulling fullsizes coaches. That resembles what commuter railroads use. It does not resemble a subway, light rail, streetcar, or people move at all.


I would be very against moving heritage railroads down from tier 2 broadly, however if a particular heritage railroad does not meet what I described above (e.g. narrow gauge, smaller equipment) then I could see it being placed in tier 4 or 5 instead.

I don't really know about other countries, but the ones I've found in the US (at least out West) don't interconnect to a national network and are usually the sole users of their tracks. I mean, when you compare the UTA FrontRunner in SLC and the Old Hill City Railroad in SD, they don't feel like they should be the same tier. Maybe the US ones could be moved down to Tier 4/5 (especially if we to go to one overall system format as discussed elsewhere)?

[si404]

I don't really know about other countries, but the ones I've found in the US (at least out West) don't interconnect to a national network and are usually the sole users of their tracks.

Similar over here in the UK/Ireland - there's a couple of places where there's interaction, but everything else is isolated and mostly short.

*The Jacobite is a steam-run service on the national network. There's a couple of heritage lines that have previously seen through-running off the national network (Swanage Railway, West Somerset Railway) or runs trains on a short bit of it (eg the Swanage railway). Also some stations see both a heritage line and a regular line (eg Blaenau Ffestiniog).

[si404]

Yeah, the line ending at a junction point ("Loop") is in line with the draft manual. You'll see this in Chicago too for all the L lines that terminate at the, um, loop.

I'd read that line in the draft manual differently and have one-way loops continue to the first station beyond (which was how I drafted them anyway). Logic being that you a stop is a consistent visible point to break your travels at. As you point out....

That said, if someone started a trip on the outbound side of the loop and didn't take a return ride in the opposite direction, they won't be able to map their travels properly without using a DIV point. This could be an argument in favor of running the line concurrent with itself to the first bidirectional station

Currently, if I'd travelled from Terminal 8 to Jamaica it would be
NY AirTrnJam T8 Loop
NY AirTrnJam <unknown div point>* Jam

*and I can't click to find its name as it's concurrent with the later point 'Loop'. It does work if I use the list tool to highlight the relevant sections - the point is +DIV_Loop

I would have it as
NY AirTrnJam T8 FedCir_2
NY AirTrnJam FedCir_1 Jam

but... it isn't actually feasible to avoid all cases where someone might need to put a DIV point in their rlist file, so we need a way of enabling that to the non-power user regardless.

Surely we ought to minimise the number of cases when using the somewhat hidden points is needed?

That said, the list tool does enable it...

[nezinscot]

I have a question about how lines like the Akita Shinkansen should be handled.

-- Service extends from Tokyo to Akita. 
-- From Tokyo to Morioka the Akita cars are attached to the end of a Tohoku Shinkansen train running on the Tohoku Shinkansen tracks.
-- At Morioka, the Akita cars are detached and then run on regular lines to Akita.

Does the Akita Shinkansen start in Tokyo, or does it start in Morioka?  I would assume Tokyo with a concurrency to Morioka.