"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

------------

Not colour please. Bad for the colour blind.

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

U

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

The "fast" thing does work at Paddington (and I can't remember seeing
it anywhere else either) but that's a fairly limited situation.

"Fast" is relative. *Down my way I've heard the "fast" used to mean
"not calling at Deptford".

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and
the confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes,
instead of which they are being abolished (but that's several other
threads).

------------

Not colour please. * Bad for the colour blind.

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have
been deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out
where trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train
when you already know where they go.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

'OV'? Meaning what?

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and the
confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes, instead
of which they are being abolished (but that's several other threads).

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have been
deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

Codes which would be of absolutely no use to the vast majority of people,
though? Or could they be made generally understood? I was about to mouth
off about how this was pointless elitism, but then i thought about buses,
and how those are identified by numbers, and still manage to be popular
with non-elitists. How do you see this code system working?

Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out where
trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train when you
already know where they go.

I'd say the fundamental problem was the idea that giving a final
destination is enough to identify where a train goes - that's why, in the
non-lying scheme, people get confused between fast and slow trains. The
lying scheme fixes this by lying about the final destination, but isn't
the answer to add the missing information to the description of the train?

tom

--
The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. -- Alan Kay

On Dec 7, 5:00*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:
On Dec 7, 2:46*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

....
On Dec 7, 12:58 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 7 Dec, 12:17, Colin McKenzie wrote:

MIG wrote:
I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken

Paddington's summary departure boards have a special column marked
"Fast Reading" where an asterisk appears. I don't know if there's an
equivalent at Reading, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
Paddington also has "Heathrow Airport" and "Heathrow via Hayes &
Harlington" to differentiate fast and slow services, and the same is
done at Heathrow.

I prefer Colin's (not my) option 2 as being generalisable. *If colours
aren't possible, maybe an "OV" or something.

'OV'? Meaning what?

There's a whole load of fake destinations used on the south eastern
where the overtaking tends to involve totally different routes, and the
confusion could be solved by comprehensive use of route codes, instead
of which they are being abolished (but that's several other threads).

My favourite would be consistent and comprehensive use of two-digit
codes for routes and stopping patterns, which for some reason have been
deemed to be unnecessary due to irrelevant "improvements" in PIS.

Codes which would be of absolutely no use to the vast majority of people,
though? Or could they be made generally understood? I was about to mouth
off about how this was pointless elitism, but then i thought about buses,
and how those are identified by numbers, and still manage to be popular
with non-elitists. How do you see this code system working?

That's why I said "comprehensive". As with buses everywhere, many
railways in Europe use codes in timetables and so on, which is
particulary useful when tracking the same train from table to table or
across national boundaries.

Having established that "90" gets you where you are going, and "4"
gets you there via more places, all you need to look out for is "90"
or "4" on the platform and train.

They would need to be used in all timetables, on all platform and
concourse displays and on the trains themselves, as they are with bus
timetables, bus stations and buses.

Your point about buses is very valid. I can't imagine what it is
about trains, whose routes are generally simpler, that makes codes not
possible. It would be interesting to see what the result of removing
route codes from London buses would be, leaving people with only
destinations and scrolling displays.


Would it be enough to establish a controlled vocabulary for describing
kinds of stopping patterns - some or all of 'fast', 'slow', 'local',
'stopping', 'express', 'flyer', 'metro', and whatever else you can think
of - and giving them well-defined meanings which were consistent across
the country and over time (controlled by NR or the DfT rather than the
ToCs, i assume), then applying them everywhere. So in our original
example, when Mr Pedan3 strolled into Reading, he would have seen a sign
saying something like:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Hmm. Not keen on retrospectively giving technical meanings to
everyday words, and consistency would be a nightmare.



And would instantly have known that (a) he could take this train to
Paddington but that (b) he would be wiser not to.

And how about having a stop written in italics, or brackets, or lowercase,
if there's another train (or sensible combination of trains) which will
get you there faster?

I prefer that, but that convention has been used to imply that you
need to change. The context might make it work I spose.


How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

The underlying problem is that the decisions have been made by people
who don't understand the difference between being able to find out where
trains go and being able to quickly identify the right train when you
already know where they go.

I'd say the fundamental problem was the idea that giving a final
destination is enough to identify where a train goes - that's why, in the
non-lying scheme, people get confused between fast and slow trains. The
lying scheme fixes this by lying about the final destination, but isn't
the answer to add the missing information to the description of the train?

But it's slow and takes up a lot of space. At London Bridge, when you
are trying to find your platform, there is a slow, scrolling display
for the first train, and only destination for the second and third.

Given the frequency of services, the second train could be very soon.
So you get "Dartford [expected] 3 mins" or "Ramsgate [expected] 2
mins", but of which are totally useless. Why not "70 Dartford" or "90
Ramsgate" which would mean a helluva lot to regulars and take up very
little space.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:00:17 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

1945 Paddington SLOW
Calling at Maidenhead, Taplow, Marlow, Barlow and Farlow, and every other
bloody place between here and Timbuktu
Arrives Paddington 2239 (tomorrow)

Or maybe:-

1945 SOUTH HAMPSTEAD
(then London Euston)
Calling at lots of places

(Sorry, don't recall the last stop before Padd to use that example
)

How do Switzerland and Germany approach this problem?

Germany approaches it poorly, as it does with most PIS things.
However, the sort of thing you'd see is this

dep 19 45 RegionalExpress
haelt ueberall

Maidenhead
Taplow

L O N D O N P A D D I N G T O N

(where the "haelt ueberall" means "stops everywhere").

That said, Germany operates a very distinct system of train classes
(as do the Netherlands), and a RegionalBahn or RegionalExpress (yes,
some of these stop everywhere - the use of this class refers more to
its presence within a regular interval timetable) isn't likely to be
your quickest way to $BIG_CITY if there is another option. So that's
more or less enough.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In the Netherlands there are two simple types of trains, stopping and
intercity ones. The Dutch train indicator displays are quite big and
display all the stops on one big screen. You'll often see a sign that
says: "Stopping train to Utrecht", calling at XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Utrecht).
Intercity will arrive in Utrecht before this train." Or something
along those lines, I haven't been there for a long time I must say.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
et...
MIG wrote:
The problem is the lack of consistency and the potential for
confusion. Instead of a fake destination, it would probably be
better
to find a consistent way of showing that a train will be overtaken
by
at least one other.

Yes. There should be a better way than lying.

In the old days, you got a painted board with all the stops on in
one go, so you knew at a glance which were the slow trains - but not
whether the next train would be any quicker.

I can think of at least two better options:
1. SLOW or FAST in the abbreviated display
2. Colour code trains that get overtaken


How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of "Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

Ian Jelf wrote

You get this on the ECML too, with slow trains from Cambridge being
advertised as going to Finsbury Park and so on.

It also happens on the Central Line, with trains leaving Woodford for

Central London via Hainault being advertise as for "Hainault", until
they get to Roding Valley, when they suddenly become destined for
Ealing
Broadway (or wherever).

It is a bit weird, but i think it's a good idea.

As good as any, yes. There's no ideal solution in these situations
and
each one will have pros and cons.

And if "it's lying" is really a common reaction, then change to
"Hainault & beyond" "Finsbury Park & beyond" and so forth which are
"true" but avoid providing a final but confusing destination.

"& route xy" is also possible.

I have previously noted that SWT has loops with both directions going
to Waterloo and, eg, Weybridge to Waterloo via Staines which are both
"long" rather than "slow" and use the same solution as above.

--
Mike D

In article ,
Matt Wheeler wrote:
How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of "Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

But at a terminus, it's not so good: There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Cheers,
Mike

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On Dec 8, 11:45*am, Mike Bristow wrote:
How about a panel next to the main display which reads along the lines
of *"Next train for quickest arrival at Paddington is: xx.xx plat y"
This would need to be larger than the normal display to ensure
passengers see it first, and perhaps with a footnote that other
earlier trains run but will arrive after the recommended train.

This could work really well at stations where there is one, main,
destination (eg: *at Woking, you'd pick Waterloo; at Reading, you'd
pick Paddington; and at Stratford, Liverpool Street).

Indeed, they already have these at both Waterloo and Reading.

But at a terminus, it's not so good: *There are a large number of
destinations, and finding the right one can be a pain. * *I really
dislike Manchester Picadilly station because they take this approach;
there's such a vast amount of information it can be a pain to find
the needle you want.

Agreed that the board at Picc is annoying - but the board at London
Bridge works well, despite the enormous number of destinations. The
main difference is that the London Bridge one is a single, static
rectangle, rather than a permanently scrolling triangle.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org