The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting but today's
efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their Transport Correspondent,
Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following load
of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the Jubilee
line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a computer in
the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece of
signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track, short-circuiting the
power."


Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal *box*
falling off? What has the man been on?

On Apr 20, 10:40*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting but today's
efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their Transport Correspondent,
Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following load
of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the Jubilee
line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a computer in
the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece of
signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track, short-circuiting the
power."

Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal *box*
falling off? What has the man been on?

Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know
what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the
Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very
sub-Standard.

RPM

"Jack Taylor" wrote:
The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting but today's
efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their Transport Correspondent,
Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following load
of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the Jubilee
line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a computer in
the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece of
signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track, short-circuiting the
power."

Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal *box*
falling off? What has the man been on?


I share your concern about the plummeting standards of journalism.
However, there have always been problems when non-technical
journalists - whose education and training has mostly excluded any
mention of technology - write about technical matters.

The Evening Standard article you quoted is certainly no worse than
many other articles about technology by non-technical journalists.

However, some of the worst standards of "journalism" are to be found
on this newsgroup when contributors post messages about technology
(other than rail) that they know less than nothing about.

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:

The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been
plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their
reporting

I though it was the pictures we hated?

but today's efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their
Transport Correspondent, Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following
load of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the
Jubilee line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

Have they? We might understand that UK trains don't generally run wrong
line, but in my experience normals don't. "Why can't we go round it"
must be quite a common question when things break, along with "why can't
another train push the broken one" and "why can't we just get off here,
it's not far".

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece
of signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track,
short-circuiting the power."


Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal
*box* falling off?

Perhaps it is aimed at a general audience, and assumes that people who
know that "signal box" has a specific meaning in a railway context will
be reading Modern Railways in WHS rather than the Evening Standard
(perhaps on a train which isn't officially "overground"...)?

What has the man been on?

Did he actually write the above phrases? Maybe someone re-wrote it to
delete anoraky stuff.

Anyway, the other day the BBC website had a pic showing what looked like
an IE loco and Enterprise stock on a story about a NIR domestic service,
so once I find my green biro I'm writing to tell them that if I had a
licence, I'd cancel it...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Apr 20, 11:08*pm, RPM wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:40*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:



The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting but today's
efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their Transport Correspondent,
Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following load
of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the Jubilee
line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a computer in
the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece of
signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track, short-circuiting the
power."

Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal *box*
falling off? What has the man been on?

Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know
what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the
Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very
sub-Standard.

RPM

Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee
for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon,

The Other Tony in Walsall

On 21/04/2011 08:02, tony wrote:
On Apr 20, 11:08 pm, wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:40 pm, "Jack wrote:



The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting but today's
efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their Transport Correspondent,
Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following load
of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the Jubilee
line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a computer in
the train engine to speed up or stop."

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece of
signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track, short-circuiting the
power."

Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal *box*
falling off? What has the man been on?

Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know
what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the
Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very
sub-Standard.

RPM

Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee
for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon,


I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads:

It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney,
known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site,
passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several months
illness.

RIP.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 20/04/2011 23:15, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:

The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been
plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their
reporting

I though it was the pictures we hated?

Hey, I /like/ pictures of 4-VEPs.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 08:24:16 on Thu, 21
Apr 2011, Graeme Wall remarked:
Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee
for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon,


I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads:

It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney,
known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site,
passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several
months illness.

Dated a little over a month ago. I'm sure it was reported here, or was
it utl?
--
Roland Perry

On 21/04/2011 08:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:24:16 on Thu, 21
Apr 2011, Graeme Wall remarked:
Have a look here
http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee
for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon,


I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads:

It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney,
known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site,
passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several
months illness.

Dated a little over a month ago. I'm sure it was reported here, or was
it utl?

The latter probably, I'm not subscribed to utl.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?


What do mean, no engine? Unless the trains are pulled by horses, or
the passengers have to get out and push, there must be something -
some sort of mechanism or machinery - inside the train to make it
move. In other words, an "engine." How could it move without one?