On 23/01/2019 19:31, 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
necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer
interface for fault reporting.

Isn't the point of it that the PIS systems all the way down the train
report which toilets are vacant?

--
Basil Jet - Current favourite song...
What by Bruce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEAud9vao

On 23/01/2019 19:34, Basil Jet wrote:
On 23/01/2019 19:31, 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
necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer
interface for fault reporting.

Isn't the point of it that the PIS systems all the way down the train
report which toilets are vacant?


In that context it is rather an unfortunate acronym.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 23/01/2019 19:31, 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
necessarily be more reliable and there’d still have to be a computer
interface for fault reporting.

Isn't the point of it that the PIS systems all the way down the train
report which toilets are vacant?


IETs don’t have that feature. In any case, that could still work if the
toilet (not the PIS) was controlled by a box of relays.


Anna Noyd-Dryver