London Banter - View Single Post

Paul Corfield · January 17th 04, 09:59 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 17 Jan 2004 11:02:13 -0800, (Thomas Crame)
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote in message . ..
On 16 Jan 2004 11:16:14 -0800, (Thomas Crame)
wrote:

1. I understand Tracker is being rolled out to assist in giving
information to station staff on where the trains are.

Yes, when the S/S isn't using the tracker PC to play games or surf the
net on, which I've seen them doing more than once. And then they
report that the Tracker display isn't working when it's their own
fault!

I'm assuming you work for an Infraco given you are making remarks about
faulty systems.

I didn't think station supervisor PCs had Internet links. If you have
evidence of LUL systems being used in breach of corporate policy then I
suggest you report such abuse - it would be more helpful than quoting it
here.

Given the unremitting negative comments from passengers about poor information
surely it is a good idea to provide something that can help improve
matters? It obviously isn't a cure all - trains and signals that don't
break down would be a great help in that direction.

By all means, giving the info to station staff is useful, especially
for last train connections or service disruption etc. However, at
Oxford Circus for instance the staff have tracker (which only works
for the Bakerloo and Vic lines), a terminal for the vic line DMI,
another for the central and a camdata display for the bakerloo. Do we
really need four separate methods to deliver the same information,
especially when the existing information is perfectly adequate?

Isn't this really simple to answer? The reason is that the technology
and systems on the lines are all of varying vintages. It is likely that
it is not possible to put them on all onto one system at the present
time.

As I assume you work for MR BCV I look forward to your company providing
a state of the art integrated system. After all we are paying you more
than enough money every 4 weeks.

You say the existing information is adequate. What information and from
where? How have you assessed that it is adequate? How do you know what
it is best for LUL staff and also for our passengers?

How often will having the DMI on your home PC help, unless you live
opposite the staion? Personally, I find the service info section on
thetube.com or Ceefax good enough.

Well it entirely depends doesn't it. If you live close by then it could
be very helpful. I've looked at Tracker to see how frequent and well
spaced the service is. When a line has a delay it can be helpful to see
if the problem has been solved or not.

2. Can you provide examples to support your sweeping statement about LUL
having an initiative to produce ideas of little benefit? If LUL is so
crap at creating such ideas in your view what do you suggest should be
done then? Or do we have to pay you a fee for copyright before you will
tell us?

The phrase 'good service' springs to mind as something to make LUL
look good when it isn't. There are a number of problems with it.
Firstly, it's not an accurate statement, as it means that there may be
some delays and extended intervals, though generally a good service.
It makes LUL look good as they are saying there is a good service,
whereas in truth the service may not be good at all!

I would agree that the term "good service" can mean all things to all
men. I also find it excrutiatingly annoying when I have not just enjoyed
"good service" and someone is blaring that fact at me over the PA.

I wonder at times if the staff at Acton Town ever say that a good
service is running when passengers have been waiting 20+ minutes for a
Rayners Lane service in the freezing cold?

I wouldn't know.

The other problem with the good service board is that not all the
information is cascaded down. For instance, a whiteboard at Waterloo
can say Good service on all lines, when according to Embankment's
boards there are lines running with delays! I think a phase such as
'normal' would be far more appropriate, as the regular passengers
(sorry customers) will find it more meaningful.

I like the boards showing each line - it is simple and easy to read. You
check your lines very quickly and if necessary instantly assess whether
an alternative line is working OK.

Well if there was a properly integrated system wide consistent
information system driven off high quality signalling and control
systems then you could eradicate the inconsistencies. I look forward to
the Infracos providing such systems sooner rather than later as required
by their contracts.

The problem with the term "normal" service is that it is instantly
interpreted as "crap service" by a lot of regular users. I would imagine
(I genuinely don't know) that the use of good service is to create a
different view and to differentiate away from "normal".

And as I write this, I'm pleased to announce that ETA is down, so we
are discussing something that doesn't even work!! If tracker wasn't
made available to the public it would actually make LUL look better,
as they wouldn't know it is currently defective.

Perhaps the Infraco that maintains and provides it could spend some of
their own cash (well it's really LUL's cash) to make it more reliable.
That would help everyone and make everyone look good.

And finally, I don't want a copyright fee, I just think credit where
credit's due, not taking something and claiming it is your own work.

If an LUL employee invented then it belongs to his employer - it's how
the world works I'm afraid. I'm sure Metronet would certainly say that
for anything they may "invent".
--
Paul C

Admits to working for London Underground!