|
More Oyster Woes ...
Tube chiefs urged to investigate ‘disgraceful’ network meltdown
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ravel-chaos.do About 2,000 people had to trek through tunnels to safety on Monday. Some claimed they were forced to pay afterwards by touching out with their Oyster cards. Thousands trapped in Tube blackout forced to walk along tracks http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...long-tracks.do Passengers on the first three trains had to be led to safety through tunnels. Commuters on the trains at Swiss Cottage and Westminster were able to walk off after the drivers pulled into stations. The Swiss Cottage passengers had to pay for their journeys by touching out on their Oyster cards as they left the station. === "I was on one of the trains between St J Wood and Baker St which was stuck in the tunnel for nearly 2 hrs 40 mins. People on the train were very calm, I feel very sorry for the driver who had 2 run from one end of the train to the other atleast 5 times. We live in a great city called "London" where all the passengers were left in the tunnel without any help / emergency rescue for more than 2 hrs ? We all know that the things do go wrong sometimes but London Underground should have a system where they can get people out in less than 30 mins. Today was too much - a typical British system / engineering.... Anyways, the underground staff / british transport police were very helpful - many thanks to them but what a shame on the emergency rescue unit who couldn't make it faster. I thought not to make any complain but when I asked for the refund on my pay as go oyster card then I only received less than the original amount which was charged. The staff at the ticket window gave the reason that his system does not allow to refund the full money and you have to call 0845 number which I did and it was on hold for more than 25 mins, still no refund as it takes more than 24 hrs to register in their system. Just wondering how many people must have checked whether they got the full refund. Spoke with London Underground Customer Service about this and the lady at the other end mentioned that as a good will they might give some compensation to the people who were stuck on this particular train - RJ, London, 18/10/2010 23:06" === |
More Oyster Woes ...
On 21 Oct, 11:45, CJB wrote:
Tube chiefs urged to investigate ‘disgraceful’ network meltdown http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-tube-chief-sa... About 2,000 people had to trek through tunnels to safety on Monday. Some claimed they were forced to pay afterwards by touching out with their Oyster cards. Thousands trapped in Tube blackout forced to walk along tracks http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-thousands-tra... Passengers on the first three trains had to be led to safety through tunnels. Commuters on the trains at Swiss Cottage and Westminster were able to walk off after the drivers pulled into stations. The Swiss Cottage passengers had to pay for their journeys by touching out on their Oyster cards as they left the station. That's bollox reporting innit? Isn't it more the case that touching out at that station at that time identified them as being those punters who were entitled to a refund, whereas by not touching out they'd simply have unresolved journeys and be charged anyway? It's not touching out that gets you charged; it's not touching out that gets you charged (if you see what I mean). I know these journeys would already have timed out. |
More Oyster Woes ...
In message
, at 03:45:49 on Thu, 21 Oct 2010, CJB quoted a newspaper saying: The Swiss Cottage passengers had to pay for their journeys by touching out on their Oyster cards as they left the station. Surely they were saving themselves an unresolved journey, or would they actually have one timed-out journey *plus* a second unresolved one? -- Roland Perry |
More Oyster Woes ...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:39:05 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 03:45:49 on Thu, 21 Oct 2010, CJB quoted a newspaper saying: The Swiss Cottage passengers had to pay for their journeys by touching out on their Oyster cards as they left the station. Surely they were saving themselves an unresolved journey, or would they actually have one timed-out journey *plus* a second unresolved one? If someone in the ticket office at one of the bombed stations had made an announcement for people to come to the office if they wanted a refund then I suspect at best he would have been accused of taking the **** and ended up splashed across the Daily Wail with some ranting headline. I wonder if theres an option to set the gates up so that the open journey on the card is deleted and no money is taken? B2003 |
More Oyster Woes ...
|
More Oyster Woes ...
On Oct 21, 12:02*pm, MIG wrote:
Isn't it more the case that touching out at that station at that time identified them as being those punters who were entitled to a refund,... That sounds correct - or punters who might like to claim compo. No one would have been forced to touch out. |
More Oyster Woes ...
In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-and-delays.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? |
More Oyster Woes ...
On Oct 21, 7:47*pm, Offramp wrote: In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23890197-.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? It was late - the tabloid version of history has it that Blair brought in Bechtel to ensure it got finished on time (where on time was 'before the bloody chimes strike on the new millennium'!). |
More Oyster Woes ...
In message
Mizter T wrote: On Oct 21, 7:47*pm, Offramp wrote: In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23890197-.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? It was late - the tabloid version of history has it that Blair brought in Bechtel to ensure it got finished on time (where on time was 'before the bloody chimes strike on the new millennium'!). Well they did it with a year to spare. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
More Oyster Woes ...
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 03:45:49 on Thu, 21 Oct 2010, CJB quoted a newspaper saying: The Swiss Cottage passengers had to pay for their journeys by touching out on their Oyster cards as they left the station. Surely they were saving themselves an unresolved journey, or would they actually have one timed-out journey *plus* a second unresolved one? -- I see it like this: Their journeys were already paid for in excess. That is how the Oyster PAYG system works, by charging you for the maximum likely journey and then giving back any untravelled amount i.e. charging you for going from zone 1-6 then refunding you when it sees you've only gone thru zones 1-3. Pricecapping could also come into play so some folk only get a partial refund. It would have been nice if all those affected could have touched out and been recorded as being part of the delay thus entitling them to an easy to claim decent refund. I see this as something like £20 refund to PAYG cards and paper ticket holders and a £20 cheque/voucher for season ticket users. A goodwill gesture that could even be instant via a specially activated gate setup. Compensation for the length of delay, stress and loss of personal time could then be done separately. |
More Oyster Woes ...
On 21/10/2010 20:47, Mizter T wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:47 pm, wrote: In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23890197-.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? It was late - the tabloid version of history has it that Blair brought in Bechtel to ensure it got finished on time (where on time was 'before the bloody chimes strike on the new millennium'!). A year before... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
More Oyster Woes ...
On Oct 21, 11:25*pm, Graeme wrote:
In message * * * * * Mizter T wrote: On Oct 21, 7:47*pm, Offramp wrote: In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23890197-.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build.." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? It was late - the tabloid version of history has it that Blair brought in Bechtel to ensure it got finished on time (where on time was 'before the bloody chimes strike on the new millennium'!). Well they did it with a year to spare. So the ES reporter was wrong, was he not? He said it opened a year late. My memory is that the first deadline was 2001 or 2002, but that a general media surge suggested to punters that New Years Eve 1999/2000 was the deadline. |
More Oyster Woes ...
Offramp wrote:
My memory is that the first deadline was 2001 or 2002, but that a general media surge suggested to punters that New Years Eve 1999/2000 was the deadline. It was certainly late - I remember the 1994 tube maps predicting a 1997 completion date and throughout 1998 & 1999 there were reports of further delays - Westminster station was especially problematic and initially the extension opened as just a separate shuttle service from Stratford to North Greenwich, later Bermondsey then Waterloo. |
More Oyster Woes ...
"Arthur Figgis" wrote: On 21/10/2010 20:47, Mizter T wrote: On Oct 21, 7:47 pm, wrote: In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23890197-.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? It was late - the tabloid version of history has it that Blair brought in Bechtel to ensure it got finished on time (where on time was 'before the bloody chimes strike on the new millennium'!). A year before... Yeah yeah yeah... |
More Oyster Woes ...
Thanks for that. I was not being jejune or sarcastic - just my memory
is at fault! |
More Oyster Woes ...
"Graeme" wrote in message ... In message Mizter T wrote: On Oct 21, 7:47 pm, Offramp wrote: In the Standard's reportage of this incident today at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23890197-.do there is a phrase that hit my head like an elbow: "The Jubilee line opened a year late and only just in time for the Millennium Dome celebrations. It cost more than £2 billion to build." I thought the Jubilee Line Extension opened ahead of schedule. New Year's Day 1999/2000 was not originally part of the deadline. Or am I wrong? It was late - the tabloid version of history has it that Blair brought in Bechtel to ensure it got finished on time (where on time was 'before the bloody chimes strike on the new millennium'!). Well they did it with a year to spare. -- But wasn't it finished without the signalling system that it was supposed to have. Does that count as completing ahead of schedule. If you don't build what you started out to build then surely the goal posts moved. Kevin |
More Oyster Woes ...
Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was
a year zero, ... Actually, there was a year zero but for reasons that are self-evident if you know what happened then, there's been a huge cover-up ever since. You're not supposed to know that. Despite the disinformation that it was a rather ordinary year in Augustinian Rome, it's when people first realized that the al~~~r~~~!~ NO CARRIER |
More Oyster Woes ...
"John Levine" wrote in message ... Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was a year zero, ... Actually, there was a year zero but for reasons that are self-evident if you know what happened then, there's been a huge cover-up ever since. You're not supposed to know that. Despite the disinformation that it was a rather ordinary year in Augustinian Rome, it's when people first realized that the al~~~r~~~!~ Well it's flipping well all made up based upon an event that didn't happen, so why does it matter? tim |
More Oyster Woes ...
tim.... wrote:
"John Levine" wrote in message ... Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was a year zero, ... Actually, there was a year zero but for reasons that are self-evident if you know what happened then, there's been a huge cover-up ever since. You're not supposed to know that. Despite the disinformation that it was a rather ordinary year in Augustinian Rome, it's when people first realized that the al~~~r~~~!~ Well it's flipping well all made up based upon an event that didn't happen, so why does it matter? What event would that be? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632945.html (43 040 at London Paddington, 30 Apr 1999) |
More Oyster Woes ...
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote in message .. . tim.... wrote: "John Levine" wrote in message ... Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was a year zero, ... Actually, there was a year zero but for reasons that are self-evident if you know what happened then, there's been a huge cover-up ever since. You're not supposed to know that. Despite the disinformation that it was a rather ordinary year in Augustinian Rome, it's when people first realized that the al~~~r~~~!~ Well it's flipping well all made up based upon an event that didn't happen, so why does it matter? What event would that be? A "virgin birth" (as I understand) tim |
More Oyster Woes ...
tim.... wrote:
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote in message .. . tim.... wrote: "John Levine" wrote in message ... Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was a year zero, ... Actually, there was a year zero but for reasons that are self-evident if you know what happened then, there's been a huge cover-up ever since. You're not supposed to know that. Despite the disinformation that it was a rather ordinary year in Augustinian Rome, it's when people first realized that the al~~~r~~~!~ Well it's flipping well all made up based upon an event that didn't happen, so why does it matter? What event would that be? A "virgin birth" (as I understand) If you are referring to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, then there is very little doubt (except among those who doubt everything as a matter of policy) that the event happened. Either way, that is not the zero point of the calendar, though it is related to it. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632950.html (43 060 at London Kings Cross, 1982) |
More Oyster Woes ...
In uk.transport.london message 39bb4a9f-1c49-4a8b-acbf-75f9835d6af9@j25
g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:28:23, MIG posted: Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was a year zero, because "zero is a positive integer". Zero might represent a point in time when zero years have passed. A year later, one year has passed. This would be the first year, and in any normal counting system it would be referred to as year one, ie the number of years that have passed when it is complete. In IEEE-754 floating-point "single" and "Double" number formats. there is both a +zero and a -zero. They have the same value and compare equal, but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. Astronomer's notation calls 1 BC the year zero; it numbers years in the usual arithmetic fashion, and agrees with the common notation for all of AD. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05. Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. |
More Oyster Woes ...
On 24 Oct, 20:21, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In uk.transport.london message 39bb4a9f-1c49-4a8b-acbf-75f9835d6af9@j25 g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:28:23, MIG posted: Another bunch of rather less intelligent people insist that there was a year zero, because "zero is a positive integer". *Zero might represent a point in time when zero years have passed. *A year later, one year has passed. *This would be the first year, and in any normal counting system it would be referred to as year one, ie the number of years that have passed when it is complete. In IEEE-754 floating-point "single" and "Double" number formats. there is both a +zero and a -zero. *They have the same value and compare equal, but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. I don't think they were using those formats when the calendar was set up. Astronomer's notation calls 1 BC the year zero; it numbers years in the usual arithmetic fashion, and agrees with the common notation for all of AD. That's kind of consistent in that when that year was complete, ie at the same point zero when year 1 starts, zero years had passed beyond the point zero where we start counting positively. But one still starts counting from point zero, not from point minus one, where "year zero" (or one BC) starts. |
More Oyster Woes ...
In article id,
Dr J R Stockton wrote: In IEEE-754 floating-point "single" and "Double" number formats. there is both a +zero and a -zero. They have the same value and compare equal, ... As do ones-complement integers (which I assume the IEEE-754 formats use in some form)... ... but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. .... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. (And FWIW the TCP/IP suite uses ones-complement arithmetic in its checksum calculations.) Sam |
More Oyster Woes ...
Sam Wilson wrote
... but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. ... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. (And FWIW the TCP/IP suite uses ones-complement arithmetic in its checksum calculations.) Fortran on the Univac/Unisys 1100 series (which used one-complement single and double integers and indeed floating point). IIRC the CDC 6600/7600 was the same in providing functions for bit-wise AND, OR, XOR and NOT. -- Mike D |
More Oyster Woes ...
In uk.transport.london message
ernal-september.org, Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:36:10, Sam Wilson posted: In article id, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In IEEE-754 floating-point "single" and "Double" number formats. there is both a +zero and a -zero. They have the same value and compare equal, ... As do ones-complement integers (which I assume the IEEE-754 formats use in some form)... Never assume when you can Wiki ! They encode the unsigned part of Numbers as mantissa and exponent, and put a sign bit in front. ... but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. ... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. In JavaScript, where Numbers are Doubles, one does it by taking the reciprocal. Plus infinity and minus infinity are easily told apart. The internal sign of a Number X (that is not NaN) can be determined by comparing X + 1/X with a zero. Min(Abs(X+1/X)) = 2, at least for real numbers. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
More Oyster Woes ...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
Sam Wilson wrote ... but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. ... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. (And FWIW the TCP/IP suite uses ones-complement arithmetic in its checksum calculations.) Fortran on the Univac/Unisys 1100 series (which used one-complement single and double integers and indeed floating point). IIRC the CDC 6600/7600 was the same in providing functions for bit-wise AND, OR, XOR and NOT. I wandered off this thread early on, as i'm not that interested in the machinations of Oyster. I return to find that some truly superb drifting has been done. Well done, chaps, you guys could give the Tokyo mob a run for their money! tom -- Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
More Oyster Woes ...
In article 01cb7539$ac03b1a0$LocalHost@default,
"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote: Sam Wilson wrote ... but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. ... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. (And FWIW the TCP/IP suite uses ones-complement arithmetic in its checksum calculations.) Fortran on the Univac/Unisys 1100 series (which used one-complement single and double integers and indeed floating point). ... So are you saying you could write IF (I .EQ. -0) and have it behave differently from (I .EQ. 0) or (I .EQ. +0), or just that you could do bitwise ops? ... IIRC the CDC 6600/7600 was the same in providing functions for bit-wise AND, OR, XOR and NOT. Sam |
More Oyster Woes ...
In article id,
Dr J R Stockton wrote: In uk.transport.london message ernal-september.org, Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:36:10, Sam Wilson posted: In article id, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In IEEE-754 floating-point "single" and "Double" number formats. there is both a +zero and a -zero. They have the same value and compare equal, ... As do ones-complement integers (which I assume the IEEE-754 formats use in some form)... Never assume when you can Wiki ! They encode the unsigned part of Numbers as mantissa and exponent, and put a sign bit in front. Good point! Sign+magnitude[+exponent] rather than ones' complement. ... but they are distinguishable, even in languages that do not offer access to the bit patterns as such. ... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. In JavaScript, where Numbers are Doubles, one does it by taking the reciprocal. Plus infinity and minus infinity are easily told apart. The internal sign of a Number X (that is not NaN) can be determined by comparing X + 1/X with a zero. Min(Abs(X+1/X)) = 2, at least for real numbers. Yeah, but you can't say something like if (result == +0) { ... } else if (result == -0) { ... } can you? Sam and have it operate differently from |
More Oyster Woes ...
Sam Wilson wrote "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote: ... though I don't know of any higher-level languages that let you distinguish between +0 and -0 integers even on hardware that supports the distinction. (And FWIW the TCP/IP suite uses ones-complement arithmetic in its checksum calculations.) Fortran on the Univac/Unisys 1100 series (which used one-complement single and double integers and indeed floating point). ... So are you saying you could write IF (I .EQ. -0) and have it behave differently from (I .EQ. 0) or (I .EQ. +0), or just that you could do bitwise ops? There were lots of ways of doing it but I would have used something like IF (I .EQ. 0 .AND AND(I,1) .NE. 0) IF (I .EQ. -0) however (and any other operation using only Standard Fortran operations and functions) has to give the same result irrespective of the underlying hardware or be in violation of Standard Fortran.. Thus when one looked at the compiler generated code there was an occasional "force -0 to +0" sequence. In memory of a great mainframe http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/minuszero.html -- Mike D |
More Oyster Woes ...
In uk.transport.london message
ernal-september.org, Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35:20, Sam Wilson posted: In article id, Dr J R Stockton wrote: ... In JavaScript, where Numbers are Doubles, one does it by taking the reciprocal. Plus infinity and minus infinity are easily told apart. The internal sign of a Number X (that is not NaN) can be determined by comparing X + 1/X with a zero. Min(Abs(X+1/X)) = 2, at least for real numbers. Yeah, but you can't say something like if (result == +0) { ... } else if (result == -0) { ... } can you? Sam and have it operate differently from In JavaScript, float +0 and -0 are arithmetically equal in value, but their reciprocals differ. Integer operations are 32-bit 2's complement; +0 & -0 convert to the same Hex value, 00000000. It's all in ECMA 262 5th Edn, free PDF. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. IE8 FF3 Op10 Sf5 Cr7 news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html. http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm jscr maths, dates, sources. http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links. |
More Oyster Woes ...
"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message nvalid... In uk.transport.london message ernal-september.org, Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35:20, Sam Wilson posted: In article id, Dr J R Stockton wrote: ... In JavaScript, where Numbers are Doubles, one does it by taking the reciprocal. Plus infinity and minus infinity are easily told apart. The internal sign of a Number X (that is not NaN) can be determined by comparing X + 1/X with a zero. Min(Abs(X+1/X)) = 2, at least for real numbers. Yeah, but you can't say something like if (result == +0) { ... } else if (result == -0) { ... } can you? Sam and have it operate differently from In JavaScript, float +0 and -0 are arithmetically equal in value, but their reciprocals differ. Integer operations are 32-bit 2's complement; +0 & -0 convert to the same Hex value, 00000000. It's all in ECMA 262 5th Edn, free PDF. Yeah, but how does it define N,S,E,W,Up & Down..:-) -- Cheers, Steve. To reply, replace the rodent with the unsullied maiden. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk