Freight train run id

 
  dylankennedy Beginner

how do i know what freight is associated with e.g 4190 as appose to 4mb9 which is pacific national

Sponsored advertisement

  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

If you are looking to work out the identity and destination of intrastate Victorian trains, use the working timetables here:

https://corporate.vline.com.au/Network-Access/Network-service-plan

Once you have the PDF open, the “find” tool in your browser works a treat for finding specific train numbers.
  marvin Assistant Commissioner

Location: Mars... "The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds!"
how do i know what freight is associated with e.g 4190 as appose to 4mb9 which is pacific national
dylankennedy
Hi Dylan, not sure exactly what you are after or what resources you have already found, but perhaps have a look here...

Start with the Wikipedia entry (which gives a simple explanation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_reporting_number_%28Australia
If the link above stuffs up, then Google or Wiki: "Train Reporting Number (Australia)"

For more detail, try the ARTC pdf document located here (Downlowd and view with a PDF reader)

https://www.artc.com.au/library/Train_Numbering.pdf

Hope this helps.

marvin
------------
  M636C Minister for Railways

how do i know what freight is associated with e.g 4190 as appose to 4mb9 which is pacific national
dylankennedy
If it ran, 4MB9 would be an SCT train, not PN.

In general intrastate trains use numbers and interstate trains use letters and numbers.

In NSW 4190 would be a train from Newcastle (4) to Sydney (1) and as an "up" train has an even number (90).
The return would most likely be 1489 or 1491, with an odd number as a down train

4MB9 would be a train from Melbourne (M) to Brisbane (B) starting on Wednesday (day 4). "9" is a number used by SCT.

Pacific National trains within NSW use numbers. The Marulan South to Port Kembla Limestone train is 2928, its empty return being 9227, Marulan being in the area "2" and Port Kembla being "9".

The empty ore train from Port Pirie to Broken Hill is regarded as intrastate, since it runs on former AN track all the way and is number 4500, 4 being Port Pirie to Port Augusta and 5 Crystal Brook to Broken Hill. It starts as an up train heading south from Port Pirie.

Peter
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
For Queensland see http://www.qrig.org/safeworking/train-numbering-guide
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

For NSW, the information is contained in the TOC manual

here is a little light reading

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/industry/asset-standards-authority/find-a-standard/train-operating-conditions-toc-manual-general-12
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
' The empty ore train from Port Pirie to Broken Hill is regarded as intrastate, since it runs on former AN track all the way and is number 4500, 4 being Port Pirie to Port Augusta and 5 Crystal Brook to Broken Hill. It starts as an up train heading south from Port Pirie. '

Does this mean that we can no longer assume that 4### is a Wednesday train and 7### a Saturday service on the old AN network, please? The first numeric used to indicate the day of scheduled departure and the other numbers used to give some indication of the scheduled time of departure eg 4001 might have been an early Wednesday morning train and 7999 a late Saturday evening service. It used to be simple, huh !

In effect, has the day indicator now been replaced with some form of region/locality indicator?

Staid enough to still believe that a train number is a series of 'numerics' (1261) rather than some form of Playschool alphabet where the 'alphas' may mean different things to different people. There are far more important railway locations than there are letters in the alphabet.

Putting on train proof jacket and hiding down the yard. Smile
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Train numbers need to be homogenised across the whole network IMO.

Question for people who know about how these numbers are used, what impact would it have if the numbering system moved to an airline style system.  PN, QB, AZ, etc could be codes for the carriers, and numbers would be somewhat arbitrarily (but with some possible logic) assigned for routes, eg SC001 could be the Monday train Melbourne-Perth, SC002 would be the return etc.  PN001 and PN002 would be similarly used.
  SinickleBird Train Controller

Location: Qantas Club at Mudgee International Airport
“Train numbers need to be homogenised across the whole network..”

With the exception of narrow gauge systems, they are. And explained in the ARTC train numbering document.

For interstate running (where a train may take several days to reach its destination), the first number denotes day of departure, then two characters for departure region and destination region, then a number.

Within a state, the departure and destination regions are included in the first two digits. Plus some odd codes for coal workings, maintenance trains etc.

The 4 alpha-numeric code (plus, if clarity is lacking, a terminal state indicator, eg N for nsw) is enough to uniquely describe every train - from  sydney suburban stunning at 3 minute headways to an ad-hoc grain train from Crystal Brook to Parkes.

When I look at airline flight numbers, I get no more information than airline (QF) and domestic vs international and “up vs down”.

QF33 carries no additional information- destination? Aircraft type?
  SinickleBird Train Controller

Location: Qantas Club at Mudgee International Airport
“Running”, not “stunning”.

I can’t seem to edit from this iPhone. Autocorrect works (even when it produces crap), but edit doesn’t.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
“Train numbers need to be homogenised across the whole network..”

With the exception of narrow gauge systems, they are. And explained in the ARTC train numbering document.

For interstate running (where a train may take several days to reach its destination), the first number denotes day of departure, then two characters for departure region and destination region, then a number.

Within a state, the departure and destination regions are included in the first two digits. Plus some odd codes for coal workings, maintenance trains etc.

The 4 alpha-numeric code (plus, if clarity is lacking, a terminal state indicator, eg N for nsw) is enough to uniquely describe every train - from  sydney suburban stunning at 3 minute headways to an ad-hoc grain train from Crystal Brook to Parkes.

When I look at airline flight numbers, I get no more information than airline (QF) and domestic vs international and “up vs down”.

QF33 carries no additional information- destination? Aircraft type?
SinickleBird
Id argue that the numbering system is not homogenous across the different networks.  ARTC numbering works different to VIc, works different to NSW etc etc.

If you know the flight numbers for QF you will know that 33 is an international flight (being QF399 or less) and it is one that is going out of Australia (being odd).  Agreed, that number being an international one doesn't contain as much information as current numbering (and doesnt need to) but that could be built in, eg by using certain ranges, as is done for QF domestic (where QF400-499 are SYD-MEL flights etc).  Aircraft type is not coded for which i think is the same in rail (aside from some LE movements)?

PN for example could use numbers 100-119 for Perth-Melbourne, 120-139 for Perth-Sydney, the 200 range for grain to different ports (where as is done now the destination port could be allocated a number.

I guess i should ask, what use is derived from the current numbering system that would be lost?
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

Id argue that the numbering system is not homogenous across the different networks.  ARTC numbering works different to VIc, works different to NSW etc etc.

If you know the flight numbers for QF you will know that 33 is an international flight (being QF399 or less) and it is one that is going out of Australia (being odd).  Agreed, that number being an international one doesn't contain as much information as current numbering (and doesnt need to) but that could be built in, eg by using certain ranges, as is done for QF domestic (where QF400-499 are SYD-MEL flights etc).  Aircraft type is not coded for which i think is the same in rail (aside from some LE movements)?

PN for example could use numbers 100-119 for Perth-Melbourne, 120-139 for Perth-Sydney, the 200 range for grain to different ports (where as is done now the destination port could be allocated a number.

I guess i should ask, what use is derived from the current numbering system that would be lost?
james.au
Surely it is the same for rail, if you know the operator (as you do in airlines with your QF reference)  and you have a number, then you know the train?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Id argue that the numbering system is not homogenous across the different networks.  ARTC numbering works different to VIc, works different to NSW etc etc.

If you know the flight numbers for QF you will know that 33 is an international flight (being QF399 or less) and it is one that is going out of Australia (being odd).  Agreed, that number being an international one doesn't contain as much information as current numbering (and doesnt need to) but that could be built in, eg by using certain ranges, as is done for QF domestic (where QF400-499 are SYD-MEL flights etc).  Aircraft type is not coded for which i think is the same in rail (aside from some LE movements)?

PN for example could use numbers 100-119 for Perth-Melbourne, 120-139 for Perth-Sydney, the 200 range for grain to different ports (where as is done now the destination port could be allocated a number.

I guess i should ask, what use is derived from the current numbering system that would be lost?
Surely it is the same for rail, if you know the operator (as you do in airlines with your QF reference)  and you have a number, then you know the train?
theanimal
Fair point but you have to learn many networks.  I guess difference between airlines and rail is that in rail you learn the network coding, in airline you learn the carrier coding.

Maybe there is an opportunity to develop one system across the rail networks that is used by both network and carriers and only needs to be learned once?
  SinickleBird Train Controller

Location: Qantas Club at Mudgee International Airport
“What use is derived from the current numbering system that would be lost?”

4 characters for any train - 4190, 129L, LG60, 6CM2, T258, 4K21, 8L56, D755.

Might need quite a deal of re-programming of train control systems/displays, just to satisfy someone’s desire to use airline-style numbers.
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

Fair point but you have to learn many networks. I guess difference between airlines and rail is that in rail you learn the network coding, in airline you learn the carrier coding. Maybe there is an opportunity to develop one system across the rail networks that is used by both network and carriers and only needs to be learned once?
james.au

I am not sure you do not already have that, for ease of discussion, let me confine my comments to the DIRN under the control of ARTC.

If you look at their RAS (route access standard) document at : https://www.artc.com.au/uploads/RAS-V1.0-Appendix-B-Train-Numbering.pdf

you will see a table that explains their numbering methodology,


Then if you go to the Transport for NSW TOC manual (train operating conditions) and look at table 52 for train numbering for Interstate trains, the numbering system is replicated.

The NSW document has additional narrative for intrastate wheat/grain and mineral trains, as well as light locomotives etc.

I think what you are seeking already occurs, a train that starts its journey as XXXX retains that number throughout. There are interface agreements between the different access providers that would contain agreements on this and other matters.

Remember that much of the agreements and interfaces would have come together under the old ROA banner, and this informatiuon is now managed by the RISSB.

Does that answer your query?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
“What use is derived from the current numbering system that would be lost?”

4 characters for any train - 4190, 129L, LG60, 6CM2, T258, 4K21, 8L56, D755.

Might need quite a deal of re-programming of train control systems/displays, just to satisfy someone’s desire to use airline-style numbers.
SinickleBird
Its not a desire to use arline style, its more to have a consistent system across all networks.  The current systems work but in different ways.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

So you want to replace a small group of distinct but non-conflicting train numbering systems, which are each well suited to the different networks where they operate, with a new regime where every train operator would have their own different system?

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
  M636C Minister for Railways

' The empty ore train from Port Pirie to Broken Hill is regarded as intrastate, since it runs on former AN track all the way and is number 4500, 4 being Port Pirie to Port Augusta and 5 Crystal Brook to Broken Hill. It starts as an up train heading south from Port Pirie. '

Does this mean that we can no longer assume that 4### is a Wednesday train and 7### a Saturday service on the old AN network, please? The first numeric used to indicate the day of scheduled departure and the other numbers used to give some indication of the scheduled time of departure eg 4001 might have been an early Wednesday morning train and 7999 a late Saturday evening service. It used to be simple, huh !

In effect, has the day indicator now been replaced with some form of region/locality indicator?

Staid enough to still believe that a train number is a series of 'numerics' (1261) rather than some form of Playschool alphabet where the 'alphas' may mean different things to different people. There are far more important railway locations than there are letters in the alphabet.

Putting on train proof jacket and hiding down the yard. Smile
YM-Mundrabilla
It appears that the system you describe is in use in Western Australia for intrastate trains.

On interstate trains the letters do not vary between systems.

S = Sydney, P = Perth, X = Port Augusta (or Port Germein for SCT)

Every empty Broken Hill ore train I've seen was 4500S, every loaded 5455S (but it may vary when I'm not there).

I'm not recommending the system, just describing it.....

Peter
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
So you want to replace a small group of distinct but non-conflicting train numbering systems, which are each well suited to the different networks where they operate, with a new regime where every train operator would have their own different system?

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
justapassenger
No, sorry, this is not how I envisaged this conversation going.  Also, i am not suggesting a different system for each operator, but one consistent system for each operator across the entirety of the network.

Im thinking that this is just one of many things that could be done to bring more commonality to a very fragmented system.  I thought it might be an interesting discussion.

Aside from implementation costs (which may or may not be minor) I still haven't heard any argument for keeping the system as is other than its the way it works so don't change it, which IMO is not a strong argument, there being ere is more strength in my view of a single train numbering system.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

You're forgetting that the present group of numbering systems have each been designed to provide the maximum benefit to the people who use them - network controllers. They are deliberately non-conflicting, so you could say they are really a handful of quite logical sub-systems which combine to make one larger system.

The biggest asset of the present larger system is that you can start to find out information about the type of train simply by which of the sub-systems is used for its number. That matters a lot more to a network controller than the colour of the loco up front.

Each of the current sub-systems for train numbering was created deliberately, none of them are accidents.
  • The nXXn interstate numbering is excellent and would be very hard to improve on. In just four characters you get information about the type of train, the schedule, an appropriate level of granularity around the origin and destination, the operator, and the sequence where an operator runs multiple trains between the same cities.
  • The nnnn intrastate train numbers for NSW/SA/Vic work well too. In four characters you get the origin/destination, the direction and a unique identifier. The unique identifying numbers are well organised rather than random too, so any network controller will be able to tell exactly which train it is without having to look it up once they have been in the job for a week or two.
  • The nnn Hunter Valley coal chain numbering works very well for the purpose of organising that section of the network, and the very fact that the coal trains have a different type of number helps with differentiating coal trains from other intrastate/interstate/passenger trains which use the same infrastructure but run on to other parts of the network.
  • Then there is the Xnnn/XXnn numbering for NSW passenger services, again a useful system which both identifies the type of train and its route to the controller with just four characters.
  • Arc Infrastructure also maintain different nXnn numbers for WA intrastate trains (still four characters only, to reduce the chance of read back errors) and trains running to/from the ARTC network. That's a strength of the system rather than a burden, because it helps differentiate the type of traffic immediately.


Above all, this is all achieved with trains being identified to the controllers using just four characters. Longer ID strings would increase the chance of readback errors.

Maybe you would like to outline your suggestion rather than teasing us, and explain how it would represent an improvement on each of the current sub-systems outlined above. To be superior, it would have to be more logical and still only four digits long to prevent readback errors.
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

You're forgetting that the present group of numbering systems have each been designed to provide the maximum benefit to the people who use them - network controllers. They are deliberately non-conflicting, so you could say they are really a handful of quite logical sub-systems which combine to make one larger system.

The biggest asset of the present larger system is that you can start to find out information about the type of train simply by which of the sub-systems is used for its number. That matters a lot more to a network controller than the colour of the loco up front.

Each of the current sub-systems for train numbering was created deliberately, none of them are accidents.
  • The nXXn interstate numbering is excellent and would be very hard to improve on. In just four characters you get information about the type of train, the schedule, an appropriate level of granularity around the origin and destination, the operator, and the sequence where an operator runs multiple trains between the same cities.
  • The nnnn intrastate train numbers for NSW/SA/Vic work well too. In four characters you get the origin/destination, the direction and a unique identifier. The unique identifying numbers are well organised rather than random too, so any network controller will be able to tell exactly which train it is without having to look it up once they have been in the job for a week or two.
  • The nnn Hunter Valley coal chain numbering works very well for the purpose of organising that section of the network, and the very fact that the coal trains have a different type of number helps with differentiating coal trains from other intrastate/interstate/passenger trains which use the same infrastructure but run on to other parts of the network.
  • Then there is the Xnnn/XXnn numbering for NSW passenger services, again a useful system which both identifies the type of train and its route to the controller with just four characters.
  • Arc Infrastructure also maintain different nXnn numbers for WA intrastate trains (still four characters only, to reduce the chance of read back errors) and trains running to/from the ARTC network. That's a strength of the system rather than a burden, because it helps differentiate the type of traffic immediately.


Above all, this is all achieved with trains being identified to the controllers using just four characters. Longer ID strings would increase the chance of readback errors.

Maybe you would like to outline your suggestion rather than teasing us, and explain how it would represent an improvement on each of the current sub-systems outlined above. To be superior, it would have to be more logical and still only four digits long to prevent readback errors.
justapassenger
Well said, as someone else said the OP seems to have a solution looking for a problem.

As a retired long time employee and former train controller, the current system works well.
  Big J Assistant Commissioner

Location: In Paradise
Erm the OP is a newbie asking a legitimate question on the beginners forum.

He didn’t espouse a solution. He simply asked a question. Other posters have gone into great detail on the pros and cons.

Maybe direct your post to the correct person

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: