You are thinking of the 1903 Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance, as someone has already mentioned, a few years back I think it was. Although the arrival time at Plymouth was the same throughout the week, you are thinking of the arrival time at Penzance. The arrival time into Penzance and at stations throughout Cornwall was the same throughout the week, whether it having been the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) through or the unit connection from Plymouth. Therefore as the unit was quicker stopping at all stations through Cornwall there was a high amount of extra time in the Public Timetable to bring it to the same time the HST on a Friday would arrive, which made St Erth to Penzance seem over double the normal journey time - frequently however it arrived early. This therefore mean't that on a Friday the HST was frequently made to look like it was late as it struggled with the unit public timetable, however then by Penzance it was back to the WTT^▸ (Working Time-Table) arrival (and the unit public timetable arrival Monday-Thursday), making it arrive on time.

What you are reporting isn't possible, the only way to report a 'Not Stopping' is the way I previously stated.

The train did stop at Starcross and Exeter St Thomas. What you have highlighted however is the limitation of using train describer data for train running information. When signals are located at the ends and just before a station platform, it can have an impact on the information available.

For example at Starcross the signal is just before the platform and as such the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) because it is longer than the platform this impacts on the movement of the train describer to report an arrival, therefore the arrival reports when the train is just departing and the train describer jumps from the signal before the platform to the one after. This causes a pass report, as the arrival is reported as being after the departure.

However at Exeter St Thomas the signal is right at the end of the platform, and again as the HST is longer than the platform it goes past the signal to ensure Coach A is on the platform, this therefore results in a pass report being triggered as the departure report is reported before the train has reported as arriving.

This has been fixed for the next release, see the attachments - not without some assumptions, you must understand though.

There has been a track circuit failure which keeps re-occuring in the area.

There was not an issue of changing out of the FGW service at Basingstoke as it was pick up only. I believe the poster is referring to going to Basingstoke on the previous SWT at (xx:05) and getting onto the FGW train there (Which the booking engine would think the xx:05 has overtaken) - common misconception it seems, as what they did causes just that with the departure at xx:59. Was fixed this time around with the use of differentials at Basingstoke to ensure the minimum connection time was not met.

Differentials at Waterloo were down to the nature of the trains path, train 2 minutes ahead and 2 minutes behind - was crucial the train left as soon as possible behind the xx:05.

Set Swap at Didcot Parkway with 1728 Worcester-London (180). The HST^▸ (High Speed Train) had its horn stuck on.

Indeed, I am going to be going to the area to collect data next weekend. However when that data reaches the public eye on RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) I am not sure about - it will be released with the next version of RTT, which I hope will be released by the summer, although this isn't entirely within my control!

Sorry didn't see this, the 'UFM' you refer to, if the train is still to pass through Reading, is the booked line. The 'DM' you are referring to is what happens when a Trust report is used instead of a Train Describer triggered report - Trust is known to be far from accurate with regards to line and path indications.

If you hover over the time in question you can identify if it is a TD or Trust triggered report.

Train Describer data to translate the movements to meaningful arrival and departure times is not available for the Reading area at the present time because of the recent re-signalling - it is waiting for someone to go to the area to record time of trains arriving and departing the station in various scenarios - oh and that will most likely be me at some point!

Not this weekend, it is a 5-car Turbo to Oxford, 3-car beyond. Shortage of HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets is the issue.

The points failure is at Wolvercote Junction (near Oxford), not Charlbury. There was a points failure on Monday and upon inspection the points had been damaged by a train. This required some work to be done to make them fit for service. Yesterday (Tuesday) the points were fit to be used however required to be clipped in place for any movements - therefore for every movement to and from Charlbury the points would need to be unclipped, moved and then clipped again. Therefore a limited service was running to/from London. The points were due to be back to normal operation this morning at 8, however that has slipped a bit and they are still not back to normal operations now.

Considering the crew for the sleeper come up working a service from Exeter, anything could of happened to make them report sick on arrival.

The extra platform length could not be used anyway, Lympstone Village's platform is only 90 metres long, so that would need extending first - or trains would not be able to call there whilst running longer trains (if it was allowed)

If it had terminated at Swindon it'd still of had to go through to Bristol Parkway to get to SPM^▸ (St Philip's Marsh (Bristol depot)) (So it could go straight in), so presume just made sense just to run it right through to there.

Slight correction there, its Slough not Maidenhead.

The diagram may show it like that (not saying its wrong of course), but train planning information does refer to them as 'DFR' and 'UFM', suggesting Up and Down directions. I guess you could say the railway is full of inconsistencies!

Another example of inconsistency is that the Reading Festival line on the diagram is called DOWN Reading Festival, where as train planning information refers to it as FVL, suggesting Festival Reversal. (RVL being what is used for reversible normally)