WTT update has a lot missing

Although the WTT set was updated overnight, it appears that it does not reflect the actual service changes made at the weekend. For example, the files for the 497 carry a January 2020 date and do not reflect the extension to Dagnam Park Square. Others that should, I believe, be there include the 52 and 302 (both service reductions) and the 217 (end of widened headways).

The Datastore zip file had not been updated when I last looked about half an hour ago. This might have nothing to do with the WTT issues - but then again it might, as I had heard rumours of some sort of system change within TfL. Is there anything that would be useful for users to know at this point and - if there is a system change - will outputs look the same after the change? If not early warning would be helpful. I did comment some months ago about some new look WTTs which had escaped into the wild and the intense, possibly terminal, impact on what I do with them.

This is (I think) independent of the switch at some point to a new version of TransXChange for the Datastore zip file, which I don’t think will change much for the end user.


To update this, a new Datastore zip file has appeared overnight, though it contains very few new files.

I’ve had the rumours about a system change confirmed quite independently. It would be nice to hear about it officially though. Seems there is a short moratorium on uploading new schedules. Hopefully anything due to be introduced during this period had already been loaded to Journey Planner.

In the meantime, any chance of a sample new style WTT file please? Or a list of what will be different, as I can then get on with programming for the changes, or deciding they can’t be overcome.


To update this again, this week’s bus WTT update had two weeks’ worth of new files so they were up-to-date again. The Datastore zip file again contains very few new timetables, all of them seemingly issued to cover temporary stop changes (Barnet) or a temporary curtailment (U5).

All the WTTs were in the normal format. It would be very useful if it could be confirmed that this format will continue unchanged or (if that is notv the case) some guidance on changes provided (he asked for third time!).