Another inconsistent stop sequence

Another Datastore file with inconsistent stop sequences. This time it is tfl_8-N2-_-y05-59398.xml. The Victoria stop in the Inbound (towards Crystal Palace) sequence is 490000248YZ in some and 490002139ZZ in others. No doubt this is relates to a new timetable on certain days of the week only (aren’t some weekend night services being reduced?).

Plenty of time to get it right as the service introduction date is shown as 28 August!

Michael

Hi Michael,

We’ll investigate this.

Regards
Matthew
( @GerardButler )

Hi Michael,

I’ve found the error and have corrected the error so the correct N2 schedules will be in the next TxC upload next week

Regards
Matthew (cc @GerardButler )

Thanks, Matt. It’s usually easy to spot once you know there is a problem.

I imagine that the underlying situation - new schedules for just some days of the week and a stop change has occurred since the data were produced for unchanged days - must be quite common but the inconsistency is usually dealt with before the Datastore file is done, with the occasional rogue file slipping through.

I’m never sure what else is worth pointing out. For example, the 337 Datastore file and the WTT say that the first and last stop for the diverted service is in Battersea Rise (“Bolingbroke Grove”) but the online status info for the route says the terminus is in St John’s Hill, south (sic) if Plough Road. Quite a long walk if you want Battersea Rise!

Michael

Another one this week.

tfl_49-406-_-y05-59284.xml has problems at the Epsom end, probably because it is only on school days that the service goes beyond the Clock Tower to the Hospital.

Michael

Hi Michael,

We have now received updated schedules which include the School days schedules (and the Epsom Hospital runs) which will be included in the next TxC update on Tuesday

Regards
Matthew ( cc @GerardButler )

@MScanlon
Tuesday 31st?

See also my post earlier today which pointe out that NO regular bus schedules at all had been added or updated (or even recreated as per normal) in the Datastore files.

Given the huge number of changes in the next few weeks, perhaps a fresh update this week would be a good idea.

Michael

Hi Michael, Yes this will be the the upload next week, either the 31st or 1st September, as this is a manual process to run tasks to create the TxC files and we do not work on Bank Holidays. With regards to this week’s upload, there was an issue with the files created which has been resolved and should be an upload this week. @neamanshafiq should be able to confirm this

Regards
Matthew ( cc @GerardButler )

The correct files now seem to have been loaded. As expected, there are a lot of new files.

Michael

1 Like

… and another one, namely tfl_60-474-_-y05-58931.xml.

A stop 490004525N (Brunel Street) has been introduced towards Canning Town between 490005019N (Charrington Steps) and 490000039E (Canning Town). This is in the inward journey patterns, though only in some of them.

The twist here is that this is not a new file and the error was not present before. However, the Brunel Street stop was present in the list of stops, without being used in the actual journey patterns. So maybe an omission from the sequences has been (half-)corrected.

Hi Michael,

This has been passed onto the schedulers to investigate as there is an issue with the source data. As a stop-gap a previous version has been re-added which contains the correct stop sequence.

Regards
Matthew (cc @GerardButler )

1 Like

Yep. It’s happened again. This time on tfl_59-261-_-y05-60100.xml.

On the inbound sequence stops 1-12 are consistent but the next stop is 490001037A in some sequences and 490001037W on others. This is Bromley South Station, northbound. The rest of the sequences and the total number of stops are is the same.

Start date 11th October so time to sort it before it starts!

Michael

2 Likes

Hi Michael,

This has now been corrected

Regards
Matthew ( cc @GerardButler )

2 Likes

… and the next one please.

tfl_60-128-_-y05-60271.xml is the latest to show this “feature”. The stop 490001157H at Ilford Station aooears in some of the outbound sequences but not others. The first day of service is shown as 30th October.

I do find myself asking this question - if I can spot them so easily, why can’t the system that creates the files? The answer to that might well be that the frequency of occurrence is such that it is not worth amending the software to check, particularly if you’ve got a helpful unpaid outsider (or muggins!) doing it for you…

2 Likes

Hi Michael,

I have corrected this now.

I have spoken to my manager regarding this to try to ensure that the team ensure that this no longer happens.

Regards
Matthew

Thanks, Matthew. I appreciate that the only action worth taking may be to issue a reminder to real human beings to check!

Michael

@matthewscanlon
A variation on a theme on file tfl_21-159-_-y05-60232.xml.

A stop 490000173RC has been added at the end of all outbound stop sequences but it it has not been given a sequence number (should be 38). The stop was not present in the file in last week’s download. I think it is a festive season special so if it matters there’s plenty of time to amend it.

@matthewscanlon
Just a gentle reminder, as it has not been corrected in the Datastore set of JP files made available overnight.

1 Like

Hi Michael,

Sorry for the delay in response, I have found the issue, the revised schedules with the curtailment to Oxford Circus was sent with the last stop omitted, a revised version of this schedule, which was uploaded to include special Christmas schedules has now been imported and has corrected this, although please note the file name will change for this route

Regards
Matthew

1 Like

Thanks, Matthew. It was there in the schedule, just not numbered in the sequence. Not that it matters if the new file is correct.

Does seem odd that 159 makes it up to Oxford Circus proper while the N109 seems to chuck tits punters off at Conduit Street, the stop before. I suspect it is because they have different stands but - given that the night 159 is effectively a short working of the N109) it still begs the question why. Still, that is hardly a technical matter.

Michael

2 Likes