On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:
MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

On Dec 7, 12:58*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

------------

Not colour please. Bad for the colour blind.

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. *Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

------------

Not colour please. * Bad for the colour blind.

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have
been deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out
where trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train
when you already know where they go.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

'OV'? Meaning what?

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and the
confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes, instead
of which they are being abolished (but that's several other threads).

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have been
deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

Codes which would be of absolutely no use to the vast majority of people,
though? Or could they be made generally understood? I was about to mouth
off about how this was pointless elitism, but then i thought about buses,
and how those are identified by numbers, and still manage to be popular
with non-elitists. How do you see this code system working?

Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out where
trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train when you
already know where they go.

I'd say the fundamental problem was the idea that giving a final
destination is enough to identify where a train goes - that's why, in the
non-lying scheme, people get confused between fast and slow trains. The
lying scheme fixes this by lying about the final destination, but isn't
the answer to add the missing information to the description of the train?

tom

--
The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. -- Alan Kay

On Dec 7, 5:00*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:
On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

....
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

'OV'? Meaning what?

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and the
confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes, instead
of which they are being abolished (but that's several other threads).

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have been
deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

Codes which would be of absolutely no use to the vast majority of people,
though? Or could they be made generally understood? I was about to mouth
off about how this was pointless elitism, but then i thought about buses,
and how those are identified by numbers, and still manage to be popular
with non-elitists. How do you see this code system working?

That's why I said "comprehensive". As with buses everywhere, many
railways in Europe use codes in timetables and so on, which is
particulary useful when tracking the same train from table to table or
across national boundaries.

Having established that "90" gets you where you are going, and "4"
gets you there via more places, all you need to look out for is "90"
or "4" on the platform and train.

They would need to be used in all timetables, on all platform and
concourse displays and on the trains themselves, as they are with bus
timetables, bus stations and buses.

Your point about buses is very valid. I can't imagine what it is
about trains, whose routes are generally simpler, that makes codes not
possible. It would be interesting to see what the result of removing
route codes from London buses would be, leaving people with only
destinations and scrolling displays.


Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Hmm. Not keen on retrospectively giving technical meanings to
everyday words, and consistency would be a nightmare.



And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

I prefer that, but that convention has been used to imply that you
need to change. The context might make it work I spose.


How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out where
trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train when you
already know where they go.

I'd say the fundamental problem was the idea that giving a final
destination is enough to identify where a train goes - that's why, in the
non-lying scheme, people get confused between fast and slow trains. The
lying scheme fixes this by lying about the final destination, but isn't
the answer to add the missing information to the description of the train?

But it's slow and takes up a lot of space. At London Bridge, when you
are trying to find your platform, there is a slow, scrolling display
for the first train, and only destination for the second and third.

Given the frequency of services, the second train could be very soon.
So you get "Dartford [expected] 3 mins" or "Ramsgate [expected] 2
mins", but of which are totally useless. Why not "70 Dartford" or "90
Ramsgate" which would mean a helluva lot to regulars and take up very
little space.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:00:17 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Or maybe:-

1945 SOUTH HAMPSTEAD
(then London Euston)
Calling at lots of places

(Sorry, don't recall the last stop before Padd to use that example
)

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

Germany approaches it poorly, as it does with most PIS things.
However, the sort of thing you'd see is this

dep 19 45 RegionalExpress
haelt ueberall

Maidenhead
Taplow

L O N D O N P A D D I N G T O N

(where the "haelt ueberall" means "stops everywhere").

That said, Germany operates a very distinct system of train classes
(as do the Netherlands), and a RegionalBahn or RegionalExpress (yes,
some of these stop everywhere - the use of this class refers more to
its presence within a regular interval timetable) isn't likely to be
your quickest way to $BIG_CITY if there is another option. So that's
more or less enough.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In the Netherlands there are two simple types of trains, stopping and
intercity ones. The Dutch train indicator displays are quite big and
display all the stops on one big screen. You'll often see a sign that
says: "Stopping train to Utrecht", calling at XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Utrecht).
Intercity will arrive in Utrecht before this train." Or something
along those lines, I haven't been there for a long time I must say.

In article , Neil Williams
writes
1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Or maybe:-

1945 SOUTH HAMPSTEAD
(then London Euston)
Calling at lots of places

Euston used to have, on the Solari:

1025 NORTHAMPTON
Watford Junction
...
Wolverton
Northampton
(continuing on to Rugby, Coventry,
Birmingham International, and Birmingham New Street)

with the last bit being in smaller type and a different colour.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Dec 7, 5:00*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

Exactly in the way you describe (as do several other 'real' European
countries) - using a nationally consistent hierarchy of names/
designations for trains (ICE/EC/IC/IR/RE/RB/S-Bahn etc). This sort of
standardisation is sadly entirely beyond our grasp (cf. the use of a
national symbol in Germany for U-Bahn, S-Bahn and bus/tram stop,
despite different operators in different cities). I don't really know
why.