|
When the software meets the hardware
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. Lest you think that this is just a case of hide-bound traction and rolling stock engineers unable to cope with new fangled technology, in the column I quote the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter comparison. Its software has been released in ‘blocks’. The latest block, which will meet the full military specification, took over 30 iterations of the software to implement. According to Arriva Rail London, the software for the Bombardier Class 710 Aventra, which has yet to enter service, has reached Version 27. http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archiv...02.archive.txt |
When the software meets the hardware
On 21/01/2019 10:02, Recliner wrote:
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. I travel quite often on the new-fangled Siemens class 700 trains on Thameslink, which are fitted with passenger information screens at intervals in each carriage. Almost every day I travel I'm on a train where some or all of these screens fail, most often going completely blank part-way through the journey. Sometimes the screens spring back to life at City Thameslink or Farringdon when the power source is changed and I guess some parts of the system are rebooted, but not always. I wonder if the train companies are even aware of these problems - there's no obvious way of reporting them. I was surprised that in most cases when the screens ail the audio announcements of stations continues as normal. I had assumed that the simplest way of providing audio and visual information was to generate them from the same system, but obviously they have at least partially duplicated things. Modern buses are similarly afflicted: the Arriva 321 bus service (Luton - Watford) until recently had on-board screens giving information on the next stop, as well as audible announcements. That was at times very useful, especially for those travelling at night on unfamiliar routes. These were obviously not generated by a single system as on many bus journeys I found that the audio and video displays were exactly one bus stop out - which was very confusing. I see that ArrivaBus have now solved the problem by switching both systems off, so while the screens are still there, there is no no passenger information at all (unless you speak to the driver). 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. Lest you think that this is just a case of hide-bound traction and rolling stock engineers unable to cope with new fangled technology, in the column I quote the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter comparison. Its software has been released in ‘blocks’. The latest block, which will meet the full military specification, took over 30 iterations of the software to implement. According to Arriva Rail London, the software for the Bombardier Class 710 Aventra, which has yet to enter service, has reached Version 27. http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archiv...02.archive.txt -- Clive Page |
When the software meets the hardware
Clive Page wrote:
On 21/01/2019 10:02, Recliner wrote: 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. I travel quite often on the new-fangled Siemens class 700 trains on Thameslink, which are fitted with passenger information screens at intervals in each carriage. Almost every day I travel I'm on a train where some or all of these screens fail, most often going completely blank part-way through the journey. Sometimes the screens spring back to life at City Thameslink or Farringdon when the power source is changed and I guess some parts of the system are rebooted, but not always. I wonder if the train companies are even aware of these problems - there's no obvious way of reporting them. I was surprised that in most cases when the screens ail the audio announcements of stations continues as normal. I had assumed that the simplest way of providing audio and visual information was to generate them from the same system, but obviously they have at least partially duplicated things. Yes, that is surprising. Presumably the same data feeder system is used, but the computerised visual and audio subsystems are different, maybe even from different sub-contractors. Modern buses are similarly afflicted: the Arriva 321 bus service (Luton - Watford) until recently had on-board screens giving information on the next stop, as well as audible announcements. That was at times very useful, especially for those travelling at night on unfamiliar routes. These were obviously not generated by a single system as on many bus journeys I found that the audio and video displays were exactly one bus stop out - which was very confusing. I see that ArrivaBus have now solved the problem by switching both systems off, so while the screens are still there, there is no no passenger information at all (unless you speak to the driver). 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. Lest you think that this is just a case of hide-bound traction and rolling stock engineers unable to cope with new fangled technology, in the column I quote the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter comparison. Its software has been released in ‘blocks’. The latest block, which will meet the full military specification, took over 30 iterations of the software to implement. According to Arriva Rail London, the software for the Bombardier Class 710 Aventra, which has yet to enter service, has reached Version 27. http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archiv...02.archive.txt |
When the software meets the hardware
In article ,
Recliner wrote: Clive Page wrote: On 21/01/2019 10:02, Recliner wrote: 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. I travel quite often on the new-fangled Siemens class 700 trains on Thameslink, which are fitted with passenger information screens at intervals in each carriage. Almost every day I travel I'm on a train where some or all of these screens fail, most often going completely blank part-way through the journey. Sometimes the screens spring back to life at City Thameslink or Farringdon when the power source is changed and I guess some parts of the system are rebooted, but not always. I wonder if the train companies are even aware of these problems - there's no obvious way of reporting them. I was surprised that in most cases when the screens ail the audio announcements of stations continues as normal. I had assumed that the simplest way of providing audio and visual information was to generate them from the same system, but obviously they have at least partially duplicated things. Yes, that is surprising. Presumably the same data feeder system is used, but the computerised visual and audio subsystems are different, maybe even from different sub-contractors. If it's like the train PIS systems I have worked on then they are almost certainly part of the same system, but the audio playout will be sent from the PIS controller audio output direct into the train PA, whereas the displays will be distributed through a separate output via one or more intermediate controllers which feed the screens. It will be something in the latter chain that is failing. Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
When the software meets the hardware
In uk.transport.london Recliner wrote:
Yes, that is surprising. Presumably the same data feeder system is used, but the computerised visual and audio subsystems are different, maybe even from different sub-contractors. I assume it's like a modern car, which is a distributed system containing dozens of ECUs (ie computers) flying in loose formation, joined by a network. In the case of an 8 or 12 coach train there are probably hundreds of nodes. Building distributed systems is hard, especially when heterogenous, and when involving physical inputs which are difficult to simulate in a test environment (eg the kinematics of the train, doors, toilets, etc). Theo |
When the software meets the hardware
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:53:47 +0000
Clive Page wrote: On 21/01/2019 10:02, Recliner wrote: 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. I travel quite often on the new-fangled Siemens class 700 trains on Thameslink, which are fitted with passenger information screens at intervals in each carriage. Almost every day I travel I'm on a train where some or all of these screens fail, most often going completely blank part-way through the journey. Sometimes the screens spring back to life at City Thameslink or Farringdon when the power source is changed and I guess some parts of the system are rebooted, but not always. I wonder if the train companies are even aware of these problems - there's no obvious way of reporting them. At least thats not a show stopper, the trains can still be used. It seems Siemens seem to have their ducks in line unlike Bombadier when it comes to the important subsystems. |
When the software meets the hardware
On 21 Jan 2019 11:38:48 +0000 (GMT)
Theo wrote: In uk.transport.london Recliner wrote: Yes, that is surprising. Presumably the same data feeder system is used, but the computerised visual and audio subsystems are different, maybe even from different sub-contractors. I assume it's like a modern car, which is a distributed system containing dozens of ECUs (ie computers) flying in loose formation, joined by a network. In the case of an 8 or 12 coach train there are probably hundreds of nodes. Building distributed systems is hard, especially when heterogenous, and when Not really. So long as there is a published API/interface to each subsystem then the seperate nodes should just be black boxes with internals that the system intergration team shouldn't have to worry about. The problems arise when the published interfaces and/or behaviours don't match the actual ones. involving physical inputs which are difficult to simulate in a test environment (eg the kinematics of the train, doors, toilets, etc). Toilets don't need to be software controlled in the first place. Only teams trying to justify their jobs would make them so. |
When the software meets the hardware
In article ,
Clive Page wrote: I travel quite often on the new-fangled Siemens class 700 trains on Thameslink, which are fitted with passenger information screens at intervals in each carriage. Almost every day I travel I'm on a train where some or all of these screens fail, most often going completely blank part-way through the journey. Sometimes the screens spring back to life at City Thameslink or Farringdon when the power source is changed and I guess some parts of the system are rebooted, but not always. I wonder if the train companies are even aware of these problems - there's no obvious way of reporting them. I suspect TL twitter have got bored of me sending them tweets showing displays doing odd things... -- Jonathan Amery. God says "Who will go for me? Who will extend my reach? ##### And who, when few will listen, will prophecy and preach? #######__o And who, when few bid welcome, will offer all they know? #######'/ And who, when few dare follow, will walk the road I show? |
When the software meets the hardware
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? -- Basil Jet - Current favourite song... What by Bruce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEAud9vao |
When the software meets the hardware
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:06:09 +0000
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? So many obvious toilet joke responses, so hard to resist :) |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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. |
When the software meets the hardware
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. |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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 |
When the software meets the hardware
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. |
When the software meets the hardware
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? IETs don’t have that feature. In any case, that could still work if the toilet (not the PIS) was controlled by a box of relays. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
When the software meets the hardware
CONTACT EMAIL ..... danyroland27(@)AT gmail(Dot)com
CALL OR TEXT (949) 228-9436 WHATSAPP+1(949)228-9436 Wickr me ID:.......duroharry hello buds man is back with good deals for long term buyers and good and reliable if what you are interested is not on my list let me know what you need..i also offer sample to built trust see prices FOR DIAZEPAM AND KETAMINE SMALLER ORDER diazepam 10mg 300pills £25 diazepam 10mg 500pills £40 diazepam 5mg 1000pills £60 ketamine £20 each vial/1g FOR DIAZEPAM AND KETAMINE BULK ORDER diazepam 10mg 1000pills £65 diazepam 10mg 5000pills £280 diazepam 5mg 1000pills £60 diazepam 5mg 5000pills £270 diazepam 5mg 10000pills £270 diazepam 10mg 10000pills £500 ketamine £15 each vial/1g FOR KETAMINE SMALLER ORDER 5vials............£100 10vials............£175 20vials............£325 25vials............£400 FOR KETAMINE BULK ORDER 25vials............£400 50vials............£650 100vials............£1200 200vials............£2100 FOR WEED SMALLER ORDER 10g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, £50 14g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,£75 28g/oz,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, £100 FOR WEED BULK ORDER 56g/2oz,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, £175 112g/4oz,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,£300 500g/17oz,,,,,,,,,,,, £600 1000g/1kg,,,,,,,,,,,,,£900 i also have my delivery records all around the worlds and i provide dated pictures with buyers name and my name CONTACT EMAIL ..... danyroland27(@)AT gmail(Dot)com CALL OR TEXT (949) 228-9436 WHATSAPP+1(949)228-9436 Wickr me ID:.......duroharry thanks buds man |
When the software meets the hardware
|
When the software meets the hardware
In message , Optimist
writes Go away, pest. Complaint sent. I assume, if, like me when these posts first arrived, you responded to "Complaints-To: " you'll be told by Google that you aren't authorised to complain !!! -- Bryan Morris |
When the software meets the hardware
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:31:06 -0000 (UTC)
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 Why does it need even that? A purely mechanical flush would work fine. Its not as if the train is doing barrel rolls. necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer interface for fault reporting. Why is fault reporting required? People generally won't use a broken toilet and the sorts who will will just **** up the wall if its closed anyway plus the cleaners can simply check them in the evening and report if they're not working. Not everything needs to be computerised or have some sort of monitoring system built in. |
When the software meets the hardware
|
When the software meets the hardware
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:31:06 -0000 (UTC) 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 Why does it need even that? A purely mechanical flush would work fine. Its not as if the train is doing barrel rolls. The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; HSTs are tanked at every terminus and still run dry. 323s last a day, usually, except when there was a leaky valve. 323 tanks overflow onto the track when full, though, which is no longer allowed - so the toilet needs to be able to lock itself out of use when the tank is full. If it’s the Universal Access Toilet, it can lock the door out of use when the toilet is out of use, too. necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer interface for fault reporting. Why is fault reporting required? So that Hitachi can be notified that there’s a problem and send a fitter out; or at the very least see a pattern of recurring faults and investigate the underlying fault, rather than just press the reset button every night. (Whether these things actually happen is another matter!) People generally won't use a broken toilet On 800s the smaller toilets with the manual doors which therefore can’t lock themselves out of use, generally get filled to the brim with **** before people stop using them. HSTs and 323s, however, I’ve seen clogged and blocked to the brim with excrement and paper, which (a) stinks (b) is difficult to clean (for HSTs it requires an extra shunt to the siding with the flushing apron and application of hosepipe to either end of the pipe until it’s cleared; that could be the difference between several sets leaving depot on time in the morning or not). and the sorts who will will just **** up the wall if its closed anyway Good job the toilet can lock itself OOU then. plus the cleaners can simply check them in the evening and report if they're not working. Yes, and the same fault reoccurs the next morning. Not everything needs to be computerised or have some sort of monitoring system built in. No, but if it can predict faults before they occur (eg, that door/set of points is taking longer and longer to move, send someone to check it out) then that’s an advantage, surely? Anna Noyd-Dryver |
When the software meets the hardware
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 05:22:22PM +0000, Someone Somewhere wrote:
[on why train bogs should be techno-bogs] I suspect it's not just the bog itself (which is easy as you say), but: 1. The lights and any interlocking between them and the door / lock Solved by having modern low-energy LEDs, always on 2. The occupied light outside A mechanical switch in the mechanical lock. 3. The occupied light somewhere else in the carriage Wired in parallel with the prior light and both controlled by the same switch. 4. Any sensors in the toilet - smoke, fire, excessive moisture etc I really really hope that the fire alarm is *not* controlled by a computer. 5. Emergency alarm pull I really really hope that that isn't controlled by a computer either. Or if it is then there shouldn't be anything in the bog itself except a switch or two. 6. Overstay alert What are the benefits of this? I can certainly see that there are some, but do they outweigh the costs of false alarms and of taking the bog out of service when the techno- part of the techno-bog metaphorically ****s its silicon pants? -- David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet Godliness is next to Englishness |
When the software meets the hardware
On 24/01/2019 18:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
I was involved in planning work on a trial system to be fitted in place of an inboard retention tank (which was abandoned once the real cost/benefit figures began to emerge). This was very similar to the kit used on submarines, and was essentially a bio-digester, which produced clean water of a quality suitable for flushing, thereby much extending the service intervals. I think India and Russia use something like that on some /very/ long distance trains. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
When the software meets the hardware
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:22:39 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:31:06 -0000 (UTC) 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 Why does it need even that? A purely mechanical flush would work fine. Its not as if the train is doing barrel rolls. The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; How delightful. A mobile sewage farm. Why is fault reporting required? So that Hitachi can be notified that there’s a problem and send a fitter out; or at the very least see a pattern of recurring faults and investigate the underlying fault, rather than just press the reset button every night. (Whether these things actually happen is another matter!) So the toilets are complex so that when a fault occurs due to their complexity a technician can be notified? Calling Mr Heller.... On 800s the smaller toilets with the manual doors which therefore can’t lock themselves out of use, generally get filled to the brim with **** before people stop using them. HSTs and 323s, however, I’ve seen clogged and blocked to the brim with excrement and paper, which (a) stinks (b) is difficult to clean (for HSTs it requires an extra shunt to the siding with the flushing apron and application of hosepipe to either end of the pipe until it’s cleared; that could be the difference between several sets leaving depot on time in the morning or not). Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. Not everything needs to be computerised or have some sort of monitoring system built in. No, but if it can predict faults before they occur (eg, that door/set of points is taking longer and longer to move, send someone to check it out) then that’s an advantage, surely? Only if that outweighs the disadvantages of the toilet not working half the time because of its complexity. |
When the software meets the hardware
wrote:
Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. Perhaps your view will change as you age. ;-) Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Plant amazing Acers. |
When the software meets the hardware
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:22:39 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:31:06 -0000 (UTC) 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 Why does it need even that? A purely mechanical flush would work fine. Its not as if the train is doing barrel rolls. The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; How delightful. A mobile sewage farm. The alternative is for the entire railway to be the sewage farm. Why is fault reporting required? So that Hitachi can be notified that there’s a problem and send a fitter out; or at the very least see a pattern of recurring faults and investigate the underlying fault, rather than just press the reset button every night. (Whether these things actually happen is another matter!) So the toilets are complex so that when a fault occurs due to their complexity a technician can be notified? Calling Mr Heller.... Conventional toilets get blocked too. Conventional toilet door locks fail too. Conventional toilets run out of water too... On 800s the smaller toilets with the manual doors which therefore can’t lock themselves out of use, generally get filled to the brim with **** before people stop using them. HSTs and 323s, however, I’ve seen clogged and blocked to the brim with excrement and paper, which (a) stinks (b) is difficult to clean (for HSTs it requires an extra shunt to the siding with the flushing apron and application of hosepipe to either end of the pipe until it’s cleared; that could be the difference between several sets leaving depot on time in the morning or not). Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. People travelling 5h30 from Paddington to Penzance might disagree. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
When the software meets the hardware
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 09:52:16 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:22:39 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; How delightful. A mobile sewage farm. The alternative is for the entire railway to be the sewage farm. I meant in the sense of them no necessarily being emptied every night. So the toilets are complex so that when a fault occurs due to their complexity a technician can be notified? Calling Mr Heller.... Conventional toilets get blocked too. Conventional toilet door locks fail too. Conventional toilets run out of water too... I can't remember the last time the toilets in my office failed never mind my house. As for the locks failing, who the hell cares? Keep it shut with your foot. Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. People travelling 5h30 from Paddington to Penzance might disagree. Possibly, but those sort of journeys are probably 1 in 1000. There's little reason to have toilets on most multiple units IMO, certainly not something like Thameslink where the average journey is probably 45 mins. |
When the software meets the hardware
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 09:52:16 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:22:39 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; How delightful. A mobile sewage farm. The alternative is for the entire railway to be the sewage farm. I meant in the sense of them no necessarily being emptied every night. How else would you deal with the sets which outstable at Hereford, Worcester and Exeter? So the toilets are complex so that when a fault occurs due to their complexity a technician can be notified? Calling Mr Heller.... Conventional toilets get blocked too. Conventional toilet door locks fail too. Conventional toilets run out of water too... I can't remember the last time the toilets in my office failed never mind my house. As for the locks failing, who the hell cares? Keep it shut with your foot. How does that work with a sliding door, a wheelchair user, or even a non-wheelchair user in the accessible toilets where the door is too far away? Or the occasional station toilet cubicle where the door opens outwards... The toilets in your house presumably aren’t used as intensively as train ones? Over the years I’ve known domestic toilets get blocked, flush broken, flushes which only work with a certain technique, multiple flushes needed to actually clear the bowl... Mess room toilets which perhaps approach train toilet frequency of use, get blocked often enough that people add the word 'again' when they talk about it... Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. People travelling 5h30 from Paddington to Penzance might disagree. Possibly, but those sort of journeys are probably 1 in 1000. There's little reason to have toilets on most multiple units IMO, certainly not something like Thameslink where the average journey is probably 45 mins. Round here the commuter trains are often in the middle of long journeys, between 4 and 10 hours end-to-end. Just because I’m only on board for 15 minutes doesn’t mean everyone else is. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
When the software meets the hardware
wrote:
Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. People travelling 5h30 from Paddington to Penzance might disagree. Possibly, but those sort of journeys are probably 1 in 1000. There's little reason to have toilets on most multiple units IMO, certainly not something like Thameslink where the average journey is probably 45 mins. Thought you had children? Many youngsters are not able to go for hours without having to go the toilet and many seem to want use one soon after all preparations have been completed ,possibly brought on by excitement. Would not like to spend the time on a long journey in the vicinity of an 7 year old who has **** himself and a child of that age will not be in nappies. Then there is the large percentage of the population who are female whose different plumbing ,menstrual cycles and smaller bladder capacity when pregnant often means they need toilet facilities more often than men. I would agree you don’t need toilets on commuter trains where such as crossrail where off train facilities can not be too far away and frequent services make journey interruptions not the end of the world but there are many journeys around the 3 to 5 hour length such as Waterloo Exeter that some would fine awkward, your proposal that people could get off at stations might work for a single traveller , but they might be giving up a reserved seat. Could be even worse for a family who would have to get off at successive stops as each sprog decides its their time to go. GH |
When the software meets the hardware
On 26/01/2019 22:20, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 09:52:16 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:22:39 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; How delightful. A mobile sewage farm. The alternative is for the entire railway to be the sewage farm. I meant in the sense of them no necessarily being emptied every night. How else would you deal with the sets which outstable at Hereford, Worcester and Exeter? So the toilets are complex so that when a fault occurs due to their complexity a technician can be notified? Calling Mr Heller.... Conventional toilets get blocked too. Conventional toilet door locks fail too. Conventional toilets run out of water too... I can't remember the last time the toilets in my office failed never mind my house. As for the locks failing, who the hell cares? Keep it shut with your foot. How does that work with a sliding door, a wheelchair user, or even a non-wheelchair user in the accessible toilets where the door is too far away? Or the occasional station toilet cubicle where the door opens outwards... The toilets in your house presumably aren’t used as intensively as train ones? Over the years I’ve known domestic toilets get blocked, flush broken, flushes which only work with a certain technique, multiple flushes needed to actually clear the bowl... Mess room toilets which perhaps approach train toilet frequency of use, get blocked often enough that people add the word 'again' when they talk about it... Perhaps install more toilets in stations and get rid of them on trains altogether. We're a small island, there are no journeys really long enough to make them worthwhile except maybe the overnight sleeper to scotland but thats not a commuter train. People travelling 5h30 from Paddington to Penzance might disagree. Possibly, but those sort of journeys are probably 1 in 1000. There's little reason to have toilets on most multiple units IMO, certainly not something like Thameslink where the average journey is probably 45 mins. Round here the commuter trains are often in the middle of long journeys, between 4 and 10 hours end-to-end. Just because I’m only on board for 15 minutes doesn’t mean everyone else is. The guard was just locking the only working wash room on a Cardiff Pompey service last year just as I got there. He suggested I got off at Cosham so I had him endorse my ticket and caught the following gWr service with a one hour delay. I claimed my refund for an hour's delay and got it. |
When the software meets the hardware
martin.coffee wrote:
The guard was just locking the only working wash room on a Cardiff Pompey service last year just as I got there. He suggested I got off at Cosham so I had him endorse my ticket and caught the following gWr service with a one hour delay. I claimed my refund for an hour's delay and got it. If the toilet was working, why was it being locked out of use? Anna Noyd-Dryver |
When the software meets the hardware
On 27/01/2019 05:46, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
martin.coffee wrote: The guard was just locking the only working wash room on a Cardiff Pompey service last year just as I got there. He suggested I got off at Cosham so I had him endorse my ticket and caught the following gWr service with a one hour delay. I claimed my refund for an hour's delay and got it. If the toilet was working, why was it being locked out of use? Because it was no longer working! |
When the software meets the hardware
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:20:37 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 09:52:16 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:22:39 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: The vacuum flush saves water and retention tank capacity and allows the train to run a whole day (or maybe two, for those which outstable) without tanking; How delightful. A mobile sewage farm. The alternative is for the entire railway to be the sewage farm. I meant in the sense of them no necessarily being emptied every night. How else would you deal with the sets which outstable at Hereford, Worcester and Exeter? A portable vacuum unit to empty them. How else? I can't remember the last time the toilets in my office failed never mind my house. As for the locks failing, who the hell cares? Keep it shut with your foot. How does that work with a sliding door, a wheelchair user, or even a non-wheelchair user in the accessible toilets where the door is too far away? Or the occasional station toilet cubicle where the door opens outwards... So make the open inward. Why does it have to slide? How do disabled people cope in non train toilets? The toilets in your house presumably aren’t used as intensively as train ones? Over the years I’ve known domestic toilets get blocked, flush broken, flushes which only work with a certain technique, multiple flushes needed to actually clear the bowl... Mess room toilets which perhaps approach train toilet frequency of use, get blocked often enough that people add the word 'again' when they talk about it... I can barely recall the last time I saw anyone use a toilet on a commuter train. Possibly, but those sort of journeys are probably 1 in 1000. There's little reason to have toilets on most multiple units IMO, certainly not something like Thameslink where the average journey is probably 45 mins. Round here the commuter trains are often in the middle of long journeys, between 4 and 10 hours end-to-end. Just because I’m only on board for 15 minutes doesn’t mean everyone else is. 10 hours? Where the hell is it going from and to? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk