Perhaps it was starring in a Bond film
The 321s as built had LCD front displays, just like the 158s. Could this mean that they had the same destinations programmed?
720s down Turkey Street aren't the rarest things in the world. During stupid o'clock (or during diversions) trains sometimes go via Seven Sisters via the Weaver Line (including Turkey Street) instead of the regular route via Tottenham Hale. Or, it's an ECS move that runs via that way, which again isn't the rarest thing in the world.
They're not all that rare, especially on diversion... but this one was a bit odd. It ran as 2Z04 non stop to Hertford East (except what looks like a stop to wait for a gap at Theobalds Grove). Bring back GA calls to Edmonton Green, I say... They'd be chuffing handy in a morning!
My best guess is that it was done to give an extra service from Hertford East later on. Although why it was just one five-coach unit, I'm not sure. Perhaps its usual partner is getting painted in the new livery? Waiting at Theobald's Grove makes a bit more sense, as it probably needed to wait before it could use the Cheshunt junction.
Surely they have a stack of paper labels somewhere and can hand write the destinations and stick them in the windows
Is there anything to hold the labels in the windows or would they just be blu-tacked?
If memory serves, it used to be blutack
What's wrong with a yellow sticky, saves carrying around lots of blu tak.
Not so much poor design as poor contracting by the purchasing body.... Having worked in IT service management with an outsourced service, if you don't specify that changes to 'look up lists' must be capable of being made in the user space (e.g. by drivers, at depots etc) then the software provider may provide a changeable list that only they can change and if the contract doesn't include changing the list(s) as a 'free' service then you may well end up with a chargeable service.
Having only been a software engineer and avoided doing any work with contracts cannot say what should happen. However charging for minor tasks in this way doesn't give a good working relationship between supplier and customer.
Indeed, and, although, I wasn't directly responsible for letting the contracts it was a lesson I learnt once and then at subsequent contract renewals for upgrades etc I tried to ensure that we always asked ourselves "how often will this list change?", "how quickly would we want to change it?", "who would we expect to be able to change it?" (amongst many other similar questions). When letting contracts, it pays to get down into the weeds of the service that is being contracted to ensure everything is covered in the way you would expect - assuming that a contractor will always know, understand and give you what you want (even if you don't know it yourself) without it being stated in the contract is a road to cost overruns and poor customer experience in the longer term.
