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