Tom Anderson wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Richard J. wrote:

Thomas Crame wrote:

This is probably a good idea, as they have introduced a number of
problems with the ETA displays (look at Elephant and Castle for
example), which weren't in the original programme.

How did the original program deal with Elephant & Castle, then?

What's special about Elephant and Castle?

tom

Firstly, I didn't write tracker (it was before I joined LUL), but a
colleague of mine did. It seems to be an LUL initiative at the moment
to produce ideas that have very little benefit (unless of course you
live across the road from a Bakerloo line station), but look good in
the eyes of the public.

I don't think it was part of the author's job description, but he did
write the programming to drive the computer desk displays in the
control room, which is quite similar.

The special thing about elephant and castle is it's the terminus, and
you can get the info on eta to display both Southbound (Elephant and
Castle) and Northbound destinations on the same screen, which the Dot
matrix programming will not do.

On 16 Jan 2004 11:16:14 -0800, (Thomas Crame)
wrote:

[train info on line]
Firstly, I didn't write tracker (it was before I joined LUL), but a
colleague of mine did. It seems to be an LUL initiative at the moment
to produce ideas that have very little benefit (unless of course you
live across the road from a Bakerloo line station), but look good in
the eyes of the public.

A couple of comments

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

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?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

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

[train info on line]
Firstly, I didn't write tracker (it was before I joined LUL), but a
colleague of mine did. It seems to be an LUL initiative at the moment
to produce ideas that have very little benefit (unless of course you
live across the road from a Bakerloo line station), but look good in
the eyes of the public.

A couple of comments

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!

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?

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.


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 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?
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.

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.
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.

(Thomas Crame) wrote the following in:
om

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 something was made by an LUL employee for LUL, then it is 'their'
own work.

--
message by Robin May, succeeding at failure.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Crime is confusing.

Robin May wrote:

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 something was made by an LUL employee for LUL, then it is 'their'
own work.

Surely the LUL conditions of employment stipulate that the IPR of any
software written by LUL employees belongs to LUL?

"Stimpy" wrote the following in:


Robin May wrote:

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 something was made by an LUL employee for LUL, then it is 'their'
own work.

Surely the LUL conditions of employment stipulate that the IPR of any
software written by LUL employees belongs to LUL?

Not sure if this was clear from my original posting, by "their" I meant
LUL's.

--
message by Robin May, succeeding at failure.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Crime is confusing.

Robin May wrote:

If something was made by an LUL employee for LUL, then it is 'their'
own work.

Surely the LUL conditions of employment stipulate that the IPR of any
software written by LUL employees belongs to LUL?

Not sure if this was clear from my original posting, by "their" I
meant LUL's.

Ah, OK... Makes sense now ;-)

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!

Paul Corfield wrote in message . ..
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.

They had a separate PC purely for tracker. It wasn't my failure,
otherwise I would have reported it.

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.

Sooner the better, I think - and then have it maintained by
Westingouse or similar so it's less work for me please! Can't comment
on the money side of things, I don't see any of it.

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?
The existing DMI terminals and repeaters, running off the control
centre computers or TD systems.

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.
So do I, though I think you will be waiting for a long time on the
bakerloo and central lines.

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".
I would assume so, but most cynical commuters can see through it. Only
tourists and occasional users are decieved.

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.
The infracos are no longer responsible for Tracker. This is why (I
think) the author (or his employer) haven't been credited.

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".
I know they would. If the system hadn't been extended to the Northern
and Picc lines this would still be Metronet's asset.

(Thomas Crame) wrote in
om:


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.


Not just home PC's though, it will also work on web enabled PDA's (not many
around now, but this will change). Imagine arriving at Paddington and
being able to find out if the next Eastbound train will be a H&C or a
Circle!