On Apr 27, 11:15*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:59:15 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit. "Signalling boxes" in the conventional sense, such as they
exist on the Underground, aren't on the whole very visible to the
travelling public on the network.

(Ignoring what might actually now be inside them)
Wembley Park ?
Edgware Road ?

"on the whole"

Edgware Rd isn't terribly obvious I'd suggest - Wembley Park is
though, yes.

Anyway I like the one at Barbican:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crashcalloway/3320694222/

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit.

Most people, educated or otherwise, with or without railway experience,
would expect a signal box to be a (relatively) large building containing
aforementioned signalling kit (and human beings), from which signalling
operations are directed.

On 28/04/2011 01:37, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit.

Most people, educated or otherwise, with or without railway experience,
would expect a signal box to be a (relatively) large building containing
aforementioned signalling kit (and human beings), from which signalling
operations are directed.

Like the Hornby Dublo model they had as kids...

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 28/04/2011 01:37, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit.

Most people, educated or otherwise, with or without railway experience,
would expect a signal box to be a (relatively) large building containing
aforementioned signalling kit (and human beings), from which signalling
operations are directed.


Given, say, the number of people who think the third rail network is
diesel powered because there are no wires, I'm not convinced they would.
How often do people see easily identifiable signal boxes these days,
outside TtTE books? Modern commuter lines don't tend to be controlled
from buildings with a a brick base, wooden top and lots of levers behind
big windows.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Jack Taylor" wrote:
The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting but today's
efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their Transport Correspondent,
Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following load
of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the Jubilee
line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a computer in
the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece of
signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track, short-circuiting the
power."

Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal *box*
falling off? What has the man been on?


I share your concern about the plummeting standards of journalism.
However, there have always been problems when non-technical
journalists - whose education and training has mostly excluded any
mention of technology - write about technical matters.

The Evening Standard article you quoted is certainly no worse than
many other articles about technology by non-technical journalists.

However, some of the worst standards of "journalism" are to be found
on this newsgroup when contributors post messages about technology
(other than rail) that they know less than nothing about.

As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background information to
many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came to realise that most
stuff reported about the tube / strikes / whatever was at best misleading
or inadequate or at worse, downright lies. As a consequence, I normally
treat any newspaper as a comic on the basis that most of what is printed
is irrelevant or rubbish!

Roger

*From:* Bruce
*Date:* Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:14:08 +0100

"Jack Taylor" wrote:
The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been
plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their
reporting but today's efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by
their Transport Correspondent, Dick Murray, are spectacularly
dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general
public with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for
the following load of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's
shambles on the Jubilee line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves
which 'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal
to a computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means
they cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be
switched at points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a
piece of signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track,
short-circuiting the power."

Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of
signal *box* falling off? What has the man been on?


I share your concern about the plummeting standards of journalism.
However, there have always been problems when non-technical
journalists - whose education and training has mostly excluded any
mention of technology - write about technical matters.

The Evening Standard article you quoted is certainly no worse than
many other articles about technology by non-technical journalists.

However, some of the worst standards of "journalism" are to be found
on this newsgroup when contributors post messages about technology
(other than rail) that they know less than nothing about.

wrote:
As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background information to
many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came to realise that most
stuff reported about the tube / strikes / whatever was at best misleading
or inadequate or at worse, downright lies. As a consequence, I normally
treat any newspaper as a comic on the basis that most of what is printed
is irrelevant or rubbish!


I agree. Writing good articles about the railway needs a strong grasp
of a wide variety of technologies that are constantly being changed,
improved and developed.

It is asking an awful lot of a non-technical journalist for them to
possess the specialist knowledge that would be need to keep abreast of
all these changes. The days of newspapers, TV and other media
employing specialist journalists to write about specialist technical
subjects is long gone, if it ever happened at all.

In article ,
() wrote:

As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background
information to many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came
to realise that most stuff reported about the tube / strikes /
whatever was at best misleading or inadequate or at worse,
downright lies. As a consequence, I normally treat any newspaper as
a comic on the basis that most of what is printed is irrelevant or
rubbish!

I'm afraid my experience is much the same about anything I know directly
about, sadly. To be fair to journos, this is more because they don't have
time to find out what they need to know than because they can't be arsed
to do so.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message

In article ,
() wrote:

As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background
information to many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came
to realise that most stuff reported about the tube / strikes /
whatever was at best misleading or inadequate or at worse,
downright lies. As a consequence, I normally treat any newspaper as
a comic on the basis that most of what is printed is irrelevant or
rubbish!

I'm afraid my experience is much the same about anything I know
directly about, sadly. To be fair to journos, this is more because
they don't have time to find out what they need to know than because
they can't be arsed to do so.

Yes, I've often been interviewed by journalists from the trade press
about my specialist subject (not railways). The UK journos tend to be
worse than their, say, French, German or US equivalents, but better than
the South Africans. More often than not, these days they're new to the
subject and often freelance with just a few hours to research and write
a story with no relevant background to draw on.

Even if they do a reasonably competent job, the sub-editors dumb it down
further, if only by using mixed-case for acronyms. It was better 10 or
20 years ago, but the press now operates on much thinner margins, with
less advertisinng to fund it, and having to compete with free Web
sources (and news groups, of course). Most UK trade magazines have a
skeleton full-time staff, with the gaps filled by freelancers and
correspondents (plus advertorial). The press in non-English speaking
countries suffers less from on-line competition, and consequently has
declined more slowly.

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:

The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been
plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their
reporting

I though it was the pictures we hated?

but today's efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their
Transport Correspondent, Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following
load of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the
Jubilee line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

Have they? We might understand that UK trains don't generally run wrong
line, but in my experience normals don't. "Why can't we go round it"
must be quite a common question when things break, along with "why can't
another train push the broken one" and "why can't we just get off here,
it's not far".

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece
of signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track,
short-circuiting the power."


Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal
*box* falling off?

Perhaps it is aimed at a general audience, and assumes that people who
know that "signal box" has a specific meaning in a railway context will
be reading Modern Railways in WHS rather than the Evening Standard
(perhaps on a train which isn't officially "overground"...)?

What has the man been on?

Did he actually write the above phrases? Maybe someone re-wrote it to
delete anoraky stuff.

Anyway, the other day the BBC website had a pic showing what looked like
an IE loco and Enterprise stock on a story about a NIR domestic service,
so once I find my green biro I'm writing to tell them that if I had a
licence, I'd cancel it...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK