Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:46:28 -0700, David E. Belcher wrote:
SDO Sorry for being think - what does SDO stand for? Ta Timbo |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Solar Penguin" wrote in message ... ...And the buffet serves something that's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea. (Oh, wait. That already happens...) At least you won't have to flollop with a matress on the platform if the doors don't open... (Radio 4, H2G2 repeat, 11pm tonight (Thursday)). |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() --- "Chris Game" wrote: Or one of those detector thingies they have on the back of BMWs to detect an obstruction whilst you're backing.. No moving parts. Why bother with a hardware solution at all? It can all be done with software. The onboard computer already has a list of stations that the train will be calling at, for the scrolling electronic displays: "This train calls at..." It also has to keep count of which stations it has already called at, so it can update the displays each time: "The next station is..." Just use that information to decide whether or not to open the doors at each station. Problem solved. |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Solar Penguin" wrote in message ... The onboard computer already has a list of stations that the train will be calling at, for the scrolling electronic displays: "This train calls at..." It also has to keep count of which stations it has already called at, so it can update the displays each time: "The next station is..." Just use that information to decide whether or not to open the doors at each station. Problem solved. Until a security alert closes a station so the train doesn't stop there and then the count is off by one. Dave. |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tim wrote:
Sorry for being think - what does SDO stand for? Selective Door Opening Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() --- "Dave Liney" wrote: Just use that information to decide whether or not to open the doors at each station. Problem solved. Until a security alert closes a station so the train doesn't stop there and then the count is off by one. So how does it keep the count of "The next station is..." displays updated when that happens? Presumably the driver just presses a button (or a touch-screen display or whatever) to update the count and let it know the train's not stopping. Or maybe the signal box does it by remote control. Or something. The details don't matter. The important thing is that there already has to be some way of keeping the station count updated even when GPS isn't working. So why not use that for the doors as well? |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:32:22 UTC, TP wrote:
: James Christie wrote: : : The Russians have their own system called GLASNOSS : You have to be joking. Maybe he is. I think it's called GLONASS. Ian |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:25:33 UTC, "Gavin Hamilton"
wrote: : It's been somewhat better than that for a while, since the "random error" : was removed. IME the error is probably nearer 2 metres. Though the powers : that be can reintroduce the random factor, or turn it off entirely, should : they feel the need. You have to be careful not to confuse the random precison errors with the unrandom accuray ones. Civilian GPS is designed to be precise to about +/- 10m, whereas military GPS, which uses different signals, is precise to +/- 1m. Those errors are random - there is nothing you can do about them. Selective availability was a deliberate degradation of accuracy, done by effectively instructing satellites to tell porkies in their signals, and thereby displace all GPS positions in a particular area by an ordained amount. That's what doesn't happen (much) any more, but the precision errors remain. Ian -- |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Solar Penguin wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 24 Sep 2004:
--- "Dave Liney" wrote: Just use that information to decide whether or not to open the doors at each station. Problem solved. Until a security alert closes a station so the train doesn't stop there and then the count is off by one. So how does it keep the count of "The next station is..." displays updated when that happens? I don't think it does. My mother was travelling on a train from Clapham Junction to Arundel; I don't know what had gone wrong, but the train she was aiming for was cancelled, and the following train was only 4 carriages, not 8. As you can imagine, it was packed out, but luckily someone gave her their seat, so she was all right. Anyway, she told me afterwards that the electronic displays thought they were going to London, not away from it, so that "The next station is" was totally out of phase with reality! She said it was very funny. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 11 September 2004 |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ross wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 24 Sep 2004:
And to further complicate matters, retention tanks require that the contents be emptied, which means that they need somewhere with a suitable cleaning pan and that in turn means that it's unlikely that tanks can be cleared at every poxy little stabling point at which trains get left overnight. In the case of the 170, the toilets will lock themselves out once the retention tanks are full. I think it is the same everywhere. Although, to be fair, Eurostars seem to manage to have loos that flush for the whole journey and so, normally, does the Shuttle. But there, I suspect, if one loo locks itself out of service, the others don't, unlike on surface-only trains. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 11 September 2004 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
London Underground has its own binmen | London Transport | |||
TfL acknowledges contactless technology risk | London Transport | |||
London Underground gate revenue protection technology | London Transport | |||
New National Security Technology ignored that might have stopped the bombing | London Transport | |||
East London Extension now has its own website | London Transport |