There is plenty of space to make it work, it's just a useless software dev team who couldn't care less.
This is what I don't understand, it looks to me like it's all one big display, rather than a separate display in that corner alone. If so, can they not just increase the space given to that corner?
They definitely can, it's one whole display separated into 2 lines, where the top is the dest+coach no. and the bottom is the calling pattern. The display is extremely similar to the 377s, and is based off the same software too.
The software development team will have had nothing to do with it, as was noted by someone else further up the thread.
Its nothing to do with the software team, its a set design choice, clearly if it was such a big issue, more that the coach number mattered more than the space for displaying the maximum amount of destination line, it would have already been done.
That photo is just crazy, only about 40% of the display width is used for the destination. What is the advantage of leaving 60% of the row blank ?Was it a set design choice to revert back to shortening station names as well e.g. Clapham Jn, Strawberry H? Or was that for testing that should not have been rolled out as part of the update?
It's unbelievable how people in this thread have the audacity to defend such a poor PIS system. The most recent update with the shortened names, repeated calling pattern 3x per station, incorrect formatting and information (still says Tfl Rail, says to change for Southern services at Vauxhall etc etc) is almost exactly the same one that was shown at Derby back in August, so in 6 months it's hard to believe nothing has changed since then. If the "testers" will have tested against a spec, why would they not flag issues like this that should have never entered production in this December update, let alone the entire PIS system running off of a web instance (which is why it's so slow and laggy). It is a pathetic joke of a system.
Reference photo attached below:
If the programmers are doing their job properly then they will have done EXACTLY as the specification said. They HAVE to.Was it a set design choice to revert back to shortening station names as well e.g. Clapham Jn, Strawberry H? Or was that for testing that should not have been rolled out as part of the update?
It's unbelievable how people in this thread have the audacity to defend such a poor PIS system. The most recent update with the shortened names, repeated calling pattern 3x per station, incorrect formatting and information (still says Tfl Rail, says to change for Southern services at Vauxhall etc etc) is almost exactly the same one that was shown at Derby back in August, so in 6 months it's hard to believe nothing has changed since then. If the "testers" will have tested against a spec, why would they not flag issues like this that should have never entered production in this December update, let alone the entire PIS system running off of a web instance (which is why it's so slow and laggy). It is a pathetic joke of a system.
Reference photo attached below:
It just looks extremely tacky, should be a quick fix but how long that takes is anyone's guess.Was it a set design choice to revert back to shortening station names as well e.g. Clapham Jn, Strawberry H? Or was that for testing that should not have been rolled out as part of the update?
It's unbelievable how people in this thread have the audacity to defend such a poor PIS system. The most recent update with the shortened names, repeated calling pattern 3x per station, incorrect formatting and information (still says Tfl Rail, says to change for Southern services at Vauxhall etc etc) is almost exactly the same one that was shown at Derby back in August, so in 6 months it's hard to believe nothing has changed since then. If the "testers" will have tested against a spec, why would they not flag issues like this that should have never entered production in this December update, let alone the entire PIS system running off of a web instance (which is why it's so slow and laggy). It is a pathetic joke of a system.
Reference photo attached below:
Who's gonna pay ?.
2 units in less than a week!
A couple of units seem to have had it at least: 701041 definitely says "Lon W'loo" on the internal screens and outside, which is absolutely pathetic in my opinion as there's no reason for not putting the whole station name, given we know it fits on the screens and dot matrixes because it does on the non updated units!
Correct. Internally the talk was a new PIS update would begin to be rolled out in the first few months of 2026. I would sincerely hope it is not whatever they've done to 701042, because the version on that unit is inexplicably worse. I understand why the company prioritised getting trains into service as opposed to fixing the PIS, but things need to change fast. I can assure you the guards who sign 701s are absolutely sick of the sheer amount of automated announcements, let alone the passengers...
So going backwards. I dread to think maybe it is a space saving effort for the memory !.
This is why things like this need to be tested and challenged by non-software people, because otherwise the spec (however bad it is) and the interpretation of the spec (however loose it is) go unquestioned until it's too late.Was it a set design choice to revert back to shortening station names as well e.g. Clapham Jn, Strawberry H? Or was that for testing that should not have been rolled out as part of the update?
It's unbelievable how people in this thread have the audacity to defend such a poor PIS system. The most recent update with the shortened names, repeated calling pattern 3x per station, incorrect formatting and information (still says Tfl Rail, says to change for Southern services at Vauxhall etc etc) is almost exactly the same one that was shown at Derby back in August, so in 6 months it's hard to believe nothing has changed since then. If the "testers" will have tested against a spec, why would they not flag issues like this that should have never entered production in this December update, let alone the entire PIS system running off of a web instance (which is why it's so slow and laggy). It is a pathetic joke of a system.
Reference photo attached below:
If the customer doesn't know what is required, that doesn't excuse a bad system. If the specification was written badly, someone on some side (SWR/Bombardier/Alstom/anyone else who's had a look at these units) should have noticed and got something done about it. The customer is not always right.
How is that relevant? PIS testing can be done independently of safety-critical testing, because as long as the train is built correctly, the software can always be updated before the unit enters service.
How likely? According to what source? Either way, that doesn't excuse advertising Southern trains at Vauxhall and, more importantly, it's really easy to find the correct spelling of station names online!
Does indeed appear to be out in service.
But the spec is bad to who is the question??? Who is the customer here? I'd have thought the customer is SWR/DFT who requested the spec? The testers again, relevant members from SWR/DFT who tested it? In that case it passed to what the set requirements were. I might be wrong but the question is how many customers of SWR have gone and voiced their actual issues with the PIS system interms of its readability, usefulness etc? Surely then they'd have to do something if there was numerous reports consistently which doesn't seem so.
Who's the customer in this case? When it comes to specing the system then that would be SWR/DFT, surely they'd know what they're looking for. How many everyday commuters worry about the design of an external PIS system?
The sad fact is software writing is a competitive business. So if it is not in house then whoever wins the contract does the work. Almost always the cheapest quote. No one on the software development side is going to spend money trying to change what the customer asked for. The project is probably already at risk of going over budget. When the inevitable changes come they will be charged extra.
Currently travelling on it!
Exactly, as a programmer you follow the spec to the T especially as you'd be taking on the task at the best possible rate for said customer to get the job in the first place, which as a result doesn't often leave these days any room for "Free adjustment". You'd also need to know what tweaks outside the spec you'd be doing, which means spending a lot of extra time that you don't often have to do extra research that might be going in the completely wrong direction.
To who is the question? I don't follow.
The customer would be SWR, yes, as they are the operator of the fleet.
How many SWR customers know how to complain about the PIS? How many believe anyone will do anything about it if they do complain? Besides, SWR should make sure the PIS works before accepting the fleet, which shouldn't take very long. Either way, at some point before introduction, someone at SWR should go "hey, I though Portsm Hbr had more letters in it than that".
Christ, if whoever develops the software isn't either given a list of station names or told how to find one, that's an exceptionally poor show. However, I doubt that the reason it says "Lon W'loo" is because some software engineer in a foreign country thought that was the correct spelling - that sounds like complete tosh to me. Am I misunderstanding something here?A
After half a dozen messages from you and others saying the same thing, I don't think anyway believes that the individual developers are to blame here. SWR should have made sure that the spec was unambiguous and correct; it's also possible that they simply left the spec open to interpretation and the "correct" interpretation got lost somewhere between the spec writers and the developers. Either way, SWR should have spotted any issues and got them fixed (or fixed them themselves) before introducing such a pathetic attempt at a PIS into revenue-earning service.
Exactly this.
Those sorts of errors should never get as far as being put onto a train and sent to SWR. As Peter Wilde's post says, lots of people who use the railways (especially in/around London) are not familiar with the local geography. If they've written down that they need to get off at "Whitton", but the train tells them the next stop is "Witton", they'll probably be confused, and either not get off, or go check with someone (e.g. the guard). If the PIS confuses people to the point where they have to go and check with someone, that's really bad design (on the part of whoever did the designing, obviously).
Yes thats my point exactly. Who exactly is saying the Spec is bad? Us on this forum(yes some also actual commuters of travelers on the 701) or those non forum everyday commuters? As you said if they don't know who to complain to about the PIS system then how is an assessment being made that the PIS system is generally being seen as a bad spec? Passengers also do have ways to complain, the same way they do with lighting, toilet issues, ac problem / temperature issues and thats often the Guard, Meet the manager events at their nearest stations, Driver or any member of staff they can often find. If thats consistently being reported as an issue, staff often pass this along.
That is indeed what the subsequent updates and patches will hopefully tackle, albeit with more passenger input. Whilst the shortening of names is something thats agreeably odd at this stage it isn't foreign to the network due to the Desiro's using that same format. The passenger having headed to the platform often sees the platform based screens, potentially a member of staff before that and either the side destination(which remains the same format as I understand) or the internal screens. At worst the Guard is about.
Also do customers coming from Windsor/Reading, need interchange advice at Clapham junction for services to, you guessed it... Windsor and Reading.
