On 21/01/2019 10:02, Recliner wrote:

From Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources' e-preview:


Lest you think that this is just a case of hide-bound traction and rolling
stock engineers unable to cope with new fangled technology


http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archiv...02.archive.txt


Actually, that is how I suspect it is.

It was disappointing, at least to this retired engineer, how
unexpectedly severe EMC on the ECML was a recent issue. Now
unexpectedly severe software interface issues arise.

You can put it down to "loss of memory" as everyone seems to be keen to
do - or you can face the real issue which, IMHO, is the narrowness of
learning of modern engineers.

PA

On 21/01/2019 10:02, Recliner wrote:

From Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources' e-preview:


Lest you think that this is just a case of hide-bound traction and rolling
stock engineers unable to cope with new fangled technology


http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archiv...02.archive.txt


Actually, that is how I suspect it is.

It was disappointing, at least to this retired engineer, how
unexpectedly severe EMC on the ECML was a recent issue. Now
unexpectedly severe software interface issues arise.

You can put it down to "loss of memory" as everyone seems to be keen to
do - or you can face the real issue which, IMHO, is the narrowness of
learning of modern engineers.

PA

Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/01/2019 12:23, wrote:

Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.

But who would want the job of examining the logs?


I expect there is someone closeted away somewhere.

GH

On 23 Jan 2019 01:09:17 GMT, Marland
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/01/2019 12:23, wrote:

Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.

But who would want the job of examining the logs?


I expect there is someone closeted away somewhere.

If they're not bogged down.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 23 Jan 2019 01:09:17 GMT, Marland
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/01/2019 12:23, wrote:

Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.

But who would want the job of examining the logs?

I expect there is someone closeted away somewhere.

If they're not bogged down.

Just going through the motions.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Recliner wrote:

From Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources' e-preview:

Quote:

Engineers commissioning the new generation of software-enabled trains are
facing the problem that pretty well every system, and even sub-system, on
their train is computer controlled with its own software. This also has to
interface with the train’s third party software based systems.

For example, during a recent run in a Great Western Railway Class 800 the
Universal Access Toilet was all lit up, but the door had lost power and
wouldn’t lock. When I reported this failure to a member of the on-board
staff, she replied that it was a common issue and the toilet needed
re-booting.


IMX the two usual problems with the UAT are door and water.

The door has two main problems, both arising when it’s not left to 'do its
own thing'. The main one is that after unlocking the door, it seems to take
about 1/2 second for the door open button to become responsive. Press it
too quick and the door doesn’t open despite the button being illuminated.
People then push the door manually to open it and the toilet declares
itself out of use because it thinks the door is broken. Solution - push it
closed and it’s happy again. The second door problem is similar - sometimes
a cant, or an over-enthusiastic door mech, makes the door bounce back
slightly off the frame - only a centimetre or so, but enough that the
toilet declares itself OOU. The solution is the same as before.

Water pressure (distinct from water level or waste tank level) seems to be
a recurring problem across the fleet - I’ve taken a 9-car from Stoke
Gifford to Swindon empty and by the time I got to Swindon 5 toilets had
declared themselves failed! This is the failure which results in either
empty pan (rather than the usual couple of inches of water in the bottom)
or, if used, full pan (not flushing). The UATs lock themselves out of use
in this situation, something the regular toilets can’t do. This fault can
sometimes, but rarely IMX, be solved by pressing the ‘reset’ button behind
the mirror.

The other annoying thing will the UAT module is that the tap sensor is
offset some way to the left of both the water outlet and the symbol above
it.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Chris J Dixon writes:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 23 Jan 2019 01:09:17 GMT, Marland
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/01/2019 12:23, wrote:

Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.

But who would want the job of examining the logs?

I expect there is someone closeted away somewhere.

If they're not bogged down.

Just going through the motions.

A bad workman blames his stools.
--
Ian â—Ž

wrote:


Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.



It could be controlled by a box of relays, I suppose, but it wouldn’t
necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer
interface for fault reporting.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 23/01/2019 19:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:


Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.



It could be controlled by a box of relays, I suppose, but it wouldn’t
necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer
interface for fault reporting.

Isn't the point of it that the PIS systems all the way down the train
report which toilets are vacant?

--
Basil Jet - Current favourite song...
What by Bruce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEAud9vao

On 23/01/2019 19:34, Basil Jet wrote:
On 23/01/2019 19:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:


Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only
teams
trying to justify their jobs would make them so.



It could be controlled by a box of relays, I suppose, but it wouldn’t
necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer
interface for fault reporting.

Isn't the point of it that the PIS systems all the way down the train
report which toilets are vacant?


In that context it is rather an unfortunate acronym.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.