Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,820 
|
Post by Dom K on Mar 20, 2011 13:23:39 GMT
Hi, recently Ive been travelling Eastbound from Turnpike Lane (towards Cockfosters) on the Picc and it hasnt been showing the destination of the train on the DMI. Normally it lists the next 3 or 4 trains, but nothing... just "Piccadilly Line" seems strange to me. Im used to the westbound DMI only just showing the destination of the next train 30 seconds before it arrives (why does it do that? anyone know), but it was unexpected on the Eastbound... any ideas guys?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2011 13:26:59 GMT
One would suggest it works in a similar method to the District ex-lightbox platforms that only get the TD as it approaches. [1]
Was it previously showing a list or since you first saw it, behaving in this manner?
1- lazy infracos that can't be bothered to sort it out properly and hence connect it to the lightbox information. Would have been better off keeping lightboxes.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,100
|
Post by Tom on Mar 20, 2011 14:46:14 GMT
Sounds like the sign is defaulting to the OLC message; this is a sign there aren't any trains between there and the previous TD transmission point (Finsbury Park) As for the WB, Turnpike Lane will require info coming in from the computer at Wood Green into the TD system (which used to drive lightboxes) before it can display anything. Wood Green probably transmits as the train leaves Wood Green, therefore you won't get it until shortly before the train arrives. 1- lazy infracos that can't be bothered to sort it out properly and hence connect it to the lightbox information. Would have been better off keeping lightboxes. Some points to remember; there are no infracos as originally set up any more, they have only a finite amount of taxpayer's money to be spent, and they have to spend it where it is most needed. That probably isn't here... |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Mar 20, 2011 14:57:43 GMT
One would suggest it works in a similar method to the District ex-lightbox platforms that only get the TD as it approaches. [1] Was it previously showing a list or since you first saw it, behaving in this manner? 1- lazy infracos that can't be bothered to sort it out properly and hence connect it to the lightbox information. Would have been better off keeping lightboxes. Infracos disappeared when engineering was transferred to Metronet and Tubelines. Laziness is not a valid argument, you can blame the disastrous PPP for the waste of public money which would have been better spent maintaining the railway than going into shareholders pockets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2011 15:06:22 GMT
Some points to remember; there are no infracos as originally set up any more, they have only a finite amount of taxpayer's money to be spent, and they have to spend it where it is most needed. That probably isn't here... Hence why I mentioned keeping of lightboxes.  |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Mar 20, 2011 16:33:23 GMT
Hence why I mentioned keeping of lightboxes. Not quite off topic yet, so I, and many of my age, would certainly agree with you. Even the worst lightbox can be read easily from halfway down a platform, but for those with ageing (not ag ed) eyesight, even a good DMI tends to fall halfway between "glasses needed" and "glasses not needed", particularly when the station lighting is bright. However, the necessity/desire to (a) display the next 3 trains (which some lightboxes DID do) and (b) to hook it in with all the solid-state signalling/control equipment, meant that DMIs had to come in. Ironically technology has now progressed to the point that lightboxes would now be totally feasible with the latest train-data transmission systems. Oh well - Ho hum!!! |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,100
|
Post by Tom on Mar 20, 2011 20:57:57 GMT
Some points to remember; there are no infracos as originally set up any more, they have only a finite amount of taxpayer's money to be spent, and they have to spend it where it is most needed. That probably isn't here... Hence why I mentioned keeping of lightboxes. Yes... but the DMIs on the Picc pre-dated even shadow running by at least ten years. You can't blame the Infracos (as were) for decisions that were made ten years before they came into being! |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Mar 21, 2011 9:18:53 GMT
Hence why I mentioned keeping of lightboxes. Not quite off topic yet, so I, and many of my age, would certainly agree with you. Even the worst lightbox can be read easily from halfway down a platform, but for those with ageing (not ag ed) eyesight, even a good DMI tends to fall halfway between "glasses needed" and "glasses not needed", particularly when the station lighting is bright. However, the necessity/desire to (a) display the next 3 trains (which some lightboxes DID do) and (b) to hook it in with all the solid-state signalling/control equipment, meant that DMIs had to come in. Ironically technology has now progressed to the point that lightboxes would now be totally feasible with the latest train-data transmission systems. Oh well - Ho hum!!! I don't think DMIs had to come in at all but of course the illuminated TD signs could not display scrolling info, flashing lines etc. As we all should know 'progress' is often a double edged sword, DMIs are not so wonderful as they might be considering how long they have been around and the various issues they have suffered. Remember that DMIs replacing illuminated TD signs was a piecemeal project at best and complicated by the fact that the DMIs were tagged onto existing TD technology to a large extent. In many ways it might be argued that when they were installed originally they were a waste of money as many of them did little more than what they replaced although they can of course remind passengers not to smoke and not to leave baggage unattended. A better way may well have been to invest in flashing illuminated 'no smoking' and other warning signs as standalone items and not install DMIs until they might be fully exploited. No doubt the capital spending round had much to do with the introduction of DMIs at the time they were first installed and we all know how that works don't we, spend the budget or lose it and if losing it face a reduction in the following year's budget as a punishment for not spending it up. What a shame that monies allocated but unspent cannot be banked for a return until a more suitable time to spend arrives. |
|
