Confusing service information on platforms

[superkopite]

Over the past few years, I have boarded the wrong train at London Bridge quite a few times, and I could never really work out why until last night when I nearly did it again.

This is how Thameslink presents their live running data. 2 screens, always reading left to right.

However, if you are standing on the left side of a platform the first service is shown on the screen closest to the tracks, if you are standing on the right side of the platform, the first service is shown on the screen furthest from the tracks. This seems counterintuitive, I think my mistake has always been assuming the screen closest to the Track is the next service, that makes sense to me.

What is the right way to display this data?

 

[zwk500]

Over the past few years, I have boarded the wrong train at London Bridge quite a few times, and I could never really work out why until last night when I nearly did it again.

This is how Thameslink presents their live running data. 2 screens, always reading left to right.

However, if you are standing on the left side of a platform the first service is shown on the screen closest to the tracks, if you are standing on the right side of the platform, the first service is shown on the screen furthest from the tracks. This seems counterintuitive, I think my mistake has always been assuming the screen closest to the Track is the next service, that makes sense to me.

What is the right way to display this data?

Left-to-right is the normal reading direction in the UK, and big '1st Train' and '2nd Train' labels make it even clearer. I don't think reversing the direction would improve matters.

Thameslink is an awkward one because of the sheer number of calls the trains can make, so the portrait layout is needed to fit the information in instead of a vertical stacking arrangement.

 

[londonteacher]

They do say on the top left hand corner 1st Train, 2nd Train so if you are not checking the information that is provided that seems like a user problem rather than an information problem.

Could it be clearer? Possibly. Is it clear? Yes.

 

[superkopite]

I do agree, if you look for the information it is there.

But if I am in a rush, or not paying close enough attention, I am drawn to the board closest to the tracks and might end up boarding the wrong train. I know from canvassing my office that others have made this mistake too.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it needs to stay as is, if only for consistency with every where else where successive trains are shown in left to right “tablet” format.

 

[zwk500]

I do agree, if you look for the information it is there.

But if I am in a rush, or not paying close enough attention, I am drawn to the board closest to the tracks and might end up boarding the wrong train. I know from canvassing my office that others have made this mistake too.

Other than having a member of staff physically stop people and ask them where they are travelling to, there's a limit to what you can do with people not paying enough attention.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Or only show one train while that train is there in the platform?

 

[superkopite]

I think it needs to stay as is, if only for consistency with every where else where successive trains are shown in left to right “tablet” format.

You could argue that for consistency you always show the next departing service on the side closest to the tracks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

Other than having a member of staff physically stop people and ask them where they are travelling to, there's a limit to what you can do with people not paying enough attention.

I agree, there is a limit, but considering how you best display service information to passengers is not beyond that limit, is it?

 

[swt_passenger]

You could argue that for consistency you always show the next departing service on the side closest to the tracks

I was thinking more of the main concourses at most large stations, where you’d typically see many side by side screens in portrait format that you’d normally read left to right.

 

[pdeaves]

You could argue that for consistency you always show the next departing service on the side closest to the tracks

I suggest that, if this were the case, there would be equal calls for plain left-to-right rendition. Similarly, if only the train actually there were shown, there would be some people who want 'and the next one(s)'. There is no solution that will suit everyone.

 

[zwk500]

You could argue that for consistency you always show the next departing service on the side closest to the tracks

This is counter intuitive half the time. The normal reading direction is left to right, top to bottom, therefore people will expect the most important information to be at the top left of any display.

I agree, there is a limit, but considering how you best display service information to passengers is not beyond that limit, is it?

They have considered it, very carefully. The majority of passengers seem to be able to find their train without significant problems caused by the order of displays. I don't know anybody who would automatically look for the sign closest to the tracks as the first train. Is it possible that your office survey was susceptible to confirmation bias?

 

[dosxuk]

I would be extremely confused by looking at a display and the first thing it said was "2nd train" - to the point that I would assume that it's on a rotation and stand there waiting for it to change to showing the "1st train".

It makes far more sense for the first thing that people will be looking for to be in the first place they will look - the top left of the display.

You could argue that for consistency you always show the next departing service on the side closest to the tracks

No, for consistency, you display it the same everywhere - so the first item is at the top left.

 

[jack31439]

I've always read these as left to right, i'm sure there is some kind of study in to how people can just be wired differently to interpret things! Funny how the human brain works.

 

[whoosh]

Over the past few years, I have boarded the wrong train at London Bridge quite a few times, and I could never really work out why until last night when I nearly did it again.

This is how Thameslink presents their live running data. 2 screens, always reading left to right.

However, if you are standing on the left side of a platform the first service is shown on the screen closest to the tracks, if you are standing on the right side of the platform, the first service is shown on the screen furthest from the tracks. This seems counterintuitive, I think my mistake has always been assuming the screen closest to the Track is the next service, that makes sense to me.

What is the right way to display this data?

I agree with you that it is confusing. I've nearly been caught out by this before more than once - and I work for that TOC!

Perhaps I've subconsciously been 'programmed' by the very good design of London Transport of yesteryear...!

LT Colindale station in 1971

As the illuminated indicator shows, this southbound train of 1938 stock is for Kennington via Charing Cross.

www.flickr.com

 

[Deepgreen]

Nothing's foolproof, but the things I would look at are; 1st train and 2nd train AND the earlier of the two timings. Reading left to right is sacrosanct. 1st and 2nd could be in, say, green and yellow respectively, I suppose, to differentiate them. An irritation for me shown here, though, is some TOCs' use of the word "Due" for the next train - in the picture the first train is not "Due", it is long overdue! SWR do this for trains which are not actually due for another half an hour or more (at Guildford for their Farnham reversing trains, for example, which sit there for long periods). In the photo shown, just saying '1 min' would cover it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ve been waiting for this thread for 8 years.

I've always read these as left to right, i'm sure there is some kind of study in to how people can just be wired differently to interpret things! Funny how the human brain works.

There was much argument about this configuration, ie whether people read left to right or expect the first train to be nearest the platform edge. There was some survey work done - focus groups, actual passengers, and even psychological experts were engaged. This was the result.

As it happens I was arguing strongly for ‘nearest the platform’; and I also thought that ‘First train’ should be a permanent printed sign on the top of the monitor. I lost that argument!

 

[Starmill]

I think it needs to stay as is, if only for consistency with every where else where successive trains are shown in left to right “tablet” format.

Are there any other next train indicators that actually do that? I can't think of any with multiple screens that are the same size, except for the Thameslink ones.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

I’ve been waiting for this thread for 8 years.



There was much argument about this configuration, ie whether people read left to right or expect the first train to be nearest the platform edge. There was some survey work done - focus groups, actual passengers, and even psychological experts were engaged. This was the result.

As it happens I was arguing strongly for ‘nearest the platform’; and I also thought that ‘First train’ should be a permanent printed sign on the top of the monitor. I lost that argument!

You'll be pleased to hear that not only did I once board the wrong train at London St Pancras because I thought the second one was the first for precisely the reason you state (luckily I had time to leave it again!), but I've also fallen into the trap of reading the screen and going "eh?" to myself on several subsequent occasions, despite having previously made my mistake!

What might fix it would be a sign attached to each screen that was eye-catching and said "first train" and "subsequent trains".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

You could argue that for consistency you always show the next departing service on the side closest to the tracks

In my view this would have been the right solution. Alas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

It makes far more sense for the first thing that people will be looking for to be in the first place they will look - the top left of the display.

Maybe you would look at the top left of the left hand display first. However, I would look at the top line of the display closest to fhe train standing in the platform.

 

[Parjon]

It would be better to only have the detailed information for the incoming service, with the rest as a list

 

[Starmill]

I was thinking more of the main concourses at most large stations, where you’d typically see many side by side screens in portrait format that you’d normally read left to right.

I think you're right that trying to reorder a summary of departures, such as the long-standing one at London Liverpool Street, is frequently a little counter-intuative. But of course these screens aren't summaries, as they apply only to one platform.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

It would be better to only have the detailed information for the incoming service, with the rest as a list

That would solve the problem. However, apparently it was felt necessary that the second train, which will be just a few minutes behind the one approaching the platform in many cases, needs to have enough space to see all or most of the stops. The other through platforms at London Bridge have the calls on the subsequent departures all scrolling, and only the first departure's are shown in list format, so this issue doesn't arise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

The majority of passengers seem to be able to find their train without significant problems caused by the order of displays

And yet...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

The normal reading direction is left to right, top to bottom, therefore people will expect the most important information to be at the top left of any display.

Again, this isn't true. It might seem true to you, but it's only superficially logical.

The thing at the top of each screen is frequently not the thing one actually reads first:



Graphic demonstrates how header text which is not at the top left of a page is often read first because of its size and placement.

 

[zwk500]

That would solve the problem. However, apparently it was felt necessary that the second train, which will be just a few minutes behind the one approaching the platform in many cases, needs to have enough space to see all or most of the stops. The other through platforms at London Bridge have the calls on the subsequent departures all scrolling, and only the first departure's are shown in list format, so this issue doesn't arise.

One way to do this could be that the 1st train keeps the current display format and the 2nd train changes to a comma separated normal list.

And yet...

There will always be individuals for whom something doesn't work. It's why perfection is unattainable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

The thing at the top of each screen is frequently not the thing one actually reads first:

Graphic demonstrates how header text which is not at the top left of a page is often read first because of its size and placement.

Your example slightly failed because the way my page had scrolled meant I could only see the 'you will see this last' message.

I agree about text size/prominence etc, and that's why a printed very large '1st train' sign would be a helpful addition.

 

[Deepgreen]

I’ve been waiting for this thread for 8 years.



There was much argument about this configuration, ie whether people read left to right or expect the first train to be nearest the platform edge. There was some survey work done - focus groups, actual passengers, and even psychological experts were engaged. This was the result.

As it happens I was arguing strongly for ‘nearest the platform’; and I also thought that ‘First train’ should be a permanent printed sign on the top of the monitor. I lost that argument!

I would certainly advocate a large printed sign above the 1st train display, but would consider left to right reading to be inviolable. Printed supplements to illuminated indicators would be useful in many locations - e.g. Redhill p1 where the indicators are sometimes confusing for those trying to differentiate between 1a and 1b - large printed signs would ease this no end. Of course, numerical headcodes on the SR obviated the need for so much of this!

 

[superkopite]

I’ve been waiting for this thread for 8 years

You're welcome!!!

There was much argument about this configuration, ie whether people read left to right or expect the first train to be nearest the platform edge. There was some survey work done - focus groups, actual passengers, and even psychological experts were engaged. This was the result

Haha, fascinating! It's hard to believe, that after all of that, they still came up with what I think was the wrong solution.

You'll be pleased to hear that not only did I once board the wrong train at London St Pancras because I thought the second one was the first for precisely the reason you state (luckily I had time to leave it again!), but I've also fallen into the trap of reading the screen and going "eh?" to myself on several subsequent occasions, despite having previously made my mistake!

Glad it's not only me!

In my view this would have been the right solution. Alas.

Alas...

Maybe you would look at the top left of the left hand display first. However, I would look at the top line of the display closest to fhe train standing in the platform.

The whole "we read left to write" is largely a red herring. If we are talking about a book, yes, it's true. In all other instances, we read left to right unless there are markers, call to actions, etc that point us in different directions. Being two separate monitors is one of these markers and one of these screens being next to a train track is another, if you add those two markers together, I think you have more than enough cues to ignore "read left to right"

 

[Starmill]

There will always be individuals for whom something doesn't work. It's why perfection is unattainable.

Nobody could disagree with this. Nor with your earlier comment that:

Other than having a member of staff physically stop people and ask them where they are travelling to, there's a limit to what you can do with people not paying enough attention.

However, you'll note people have nowhere claimed perfection is the objective, or is achievable People are submitting the argument that an alternative is better because it is more logical and the current situation produces some counter-intuative results. There's lots of evidence to support that, much of which has been discussed. Indeed, a primary account of the internal process that the decision was not an easy one to make has even been supplied, and therefore I think everyone would agree there's higher than typical risk of getting it wrong. Finally, another example of somewhere else where it is done in the different way has even been supplied, although nobody has tried to suggest that anything other than the way the signs at Colindale were set up is wrong by definition, or that it would be "striving only for perfection" to suggest changes.

It would be helpful if you weren't trying to dismiss evidence by characterising the argument as 'striving for perfection' - it could all too easily be misinterpreted as an intervention in bad faith.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2023 ==

Your example slightly failed because the way my page had scrolled meant I could only see the 'you will see this last' message.

Fair enough. Of course, that also helps to demonstrate the principle too!

 

[superkopite]

There will always be individuals for whom something doesn't work. It's why perfection is unattainable.

Yes, perfection is unattainable, but better isn't.

 

[zwk500]

However, you'll note people have nowhere claimed perfection is the objective, or is achievable People are submitting the argument that an alternative is better because it is more logical and the current situation produces some counter-intuative results. There's lots of evidence to support that, much of which has been discussed. Indeed, a primary account of the internal process that the decision was not an easy one to make has even been supplied, and therefore I think everyone would agree there's higher than typical risk of getting it wrong. Finally, another example of somewhere else where it is done in the different way has even been supplied, although nobody has tried to suggest that anything other than the way the signs at Colindale were set up is wrong by definition, or that it would be "striving only for perfection" to suggest changes.

A first hand account of the process was very interesting (it has been supplied on other threads as well by the very helpful poster). However the fact that the decision in the end went the other way (after consulting a very wide body of opinion as well) also indicates that the overall consensus was that the way it is setup was the better option.

It would be helpful if you weren't trying to dismiss that by characterising the argument as 'striving for perfection' - it could all too easily be misinterpreted as an intervention in bad faith.

I will take this comment onboard.

 

[superkopite]

However the fact that the decision in the end went the other way (after consulting a very wide body of opinion as well) also indicates that the overall consensus was that the way it is setup was the better option.

Do you think it's possible that "overall concensus" is fallible?

I do. I see it all the time. In fact, the argument from popularity is rarely the right one

 

[30907]

So all we need is a 3rd screen on the right duplicating the left hand one

I'll board the first train that comes....

Seriously, if it is an issue then a large permanent sign above the LH screen (in the relevant direction) should help.

 

[zwk500]

Do you think it's possible that "overall concensus" is fallible?

I do. I see it all the time. In fact, the argument from popularity is rarely the right one

I do. But I also trust a process that has considered a very wide range of views before reaching it's conclusion more than individual accounts. That's not to say they did get it right, but as a former manager said to me 'if there was a perfect way to run the railway, in 150 years you'd like to think we'd have found it by now.' LU certainly felt your preference was the better option, as evidenced upthread, but it is just as possible for individuals to be wrong as institutions.

 

[Starmill]

Do you think it's possible that "overall concensus" is fallible?

I do. I see it all the time. In fact, the argument from popularity is rarely the right one

Indeed. My personal view is that while I would always look at the side closer to the train, I can very much see it from the angle which has been suggested, especially insofar as the screens are the same on both platforms. Indeed, if the platforms at London Bridge were separated by the tracks rather than an arranged on an 'island' then perhaps the consistency of seeing the screens in the same orientation rather than mirrored (as I would expect to see at an island) would actually have been more obvious.

 

[superkopite]

Indeed. My personal view is that while I would always look at the side closer to the train, I can very much see it from the angle which has been suggested, especially insofar as the screens are the same on both platforms. Indeed, if the platforms at London Bridge were separated by the tracks rather than an arranged on an 'island' then perhaps the consistency of seeing the screens in the same orientation rather than mirrored (as I would expect to see at an island) would actually have been more obvious.

It's an interesting take, but it depends on your point of view. "The screens are the same on both platforms" this is true positionally, if you subscribe to the left to right model.

If you are a "nearest to the track" person, the screens are different on both platforms. On the left hand platform the screen nearest the track is the first to depart, on the right side of the platform the screen nearest the track is not the first to depart