Plugs, electronic devices and trains

[scotsman]

I once saw a woman on a class 380 using hair straighteners plugged into the passenger sockets.

Just putting it out there cause no-one actually cares about who uses what type of phone or how successful they were

Probably tripped the fuse the second someone else in that coach plugged something else in

 

[Minilad]

not sure there is much chance of better battery life on the horizon (an improvement in stored energy is still holding back getting electric cars on-massfor example). Id put tables and more comfortable seats over plug sockets anyday but as it is the "in thing" for the next decade id guess.

ANd because of this i think qualifies it a useful addition to any rolling stock. The weight issue on the 700s will go on for ever i suppose.

Oh and yes, the battery life on my old nokia 6310 was amazing compared to these smartphones........but having the internet available is an obvious must these days. (i wish it wasnt to be honest)!

I am pretty sure if I disabled everything on my smartphone except call and text then my battery would last as long as an old nokia.
Smartphones are not phones anymore they are portable computer devices that can also make calls. The comparison is pointless

 

[jon0844]

not sure there is much chance of better battery life on the horizon (an improvement in stored energy is still holding back getting electric cars on-massfor example). Id put tables and more comfortable seats over plug sockets anyday but as it is the "in thing" for the next decade id guess.

When people stop wanting phones that are 5mm thick, and people like Jony Ive stop thinking that this is the way to go, we might get somewhere. Put in at least 4,000mAh batteries (some Chinese phones have 5,000 and I think there's even a 6,000 phone) and use the best chipsets, that produce less heat and have better power saving features, and I think people can crack the 'all day battery life', which won't mean all day with loads of compromises - but all day with actual ALL day usage.

Realistically, that will be screen on times of 10 hours or so.

We've now got phones that will do 5-6 hours, which is getting there.

 

[scotsman]

When people stop wanting phones that are 5mm thick, and people like Jony Ive stop thinking that this is the way to go, we might get somewhere. Put in at least 4,000mAh batteries (some Chinese phones have 5,000 and I think there's even a 6,000 phone) and use the best chipsets, that produce less heat and have better power saving features, and I think people can crack the 'all day battery life', which won't mean all day with loads of compromises - but all day with actual ALL day usage.

Realistically, that will be screen on times of 10 hours or so.

We've now got phones that will do 5-6 hours, which is getting there.

Ah, this man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHZ8ek-6ccc

 

[PowerLee]

Maybe as a compromise have QI wireless charging points in 1st class built in to the tables.

I know it won't help I phone owners as Apple hasn't invented wireless charging yet

But anyone with a decent spec Nokia, Microsoft or Samsung phone will be ok.

As for having plug sockets, not a good idea.

Added cost, weight, maintenance & periodic electrical safety testing isn't worth it.

 

[dgl]

Remember also OS power efficiency, something android/ios isn't vey good at.

I can get a full day out of my phone (if I am using it frequently but using gps sparingly (gps is still a major power hog)) and if just listning to me choons + a bit of browsing more than a day, even though my lowly Lumia 625 only has a 2Ah battery.

 

[jon0844]

That's because all the advancements have really been in power saving. Once you're playing a 3D game on a large screen with the brightness turned up (as you invariably have to when outdoors) then all that clever tech is - mostly - useless.

Being able to shut down cores, adjust the clock right down, cut off data communication and so on when in standby is great for advertising a battery that can last weeks, but in the real world it's meaningless.

All that can help is more juice. Bigger batteries are the only way to cope with higher demands from devices, and near constant usage (screen on times of 3-4 hours or more being the norm I'd say for anyone with a reasonably high-specified device).

I agree that wireless charging plates in tables would be great. Just need tables! D'oh!

 

[AM9]

That's because all the advancements have really been in power saving. Once you're playing a 3D game on a large screen with the brightness turned up (as you invariably have to when outdoors) then all that clever tech is - mostly - useless.

Being able to shut down cores, adjust the clock right down, cut off data communication and so on when in standby is great for advertising a battery that can last weeks, but in the real world it's meaningless.

All that can help is more juice. Bigger batteries are the only way to cope with higher demands from devices, and near constant usage (screen on times of 3-4 hours or more being the norm I'd say for anyone with a reasonably high-specified device).

I agree that wireless charging plates in tables would be great. Just need tables! D'oh!

Bigger batteries aren't the only answer. Moore's law is still working so semiconductor geometry is stil halving in size every 18 months. Given that has always produced increased computing power/speed for less electrical power consumed, the same applications will need less battery power even when the run faster than the last lot.
In reality, the user is their own biggest enemy. Poor discipline about apps running in the background means that the applications that they think are essential are starved of run time. If it really is important to run e-mail, listen to music and surf for news, shopping etc., then common sense would be to turn off you tube when not needed for news etc,. facebook, picasa etc.. How many users need GPS continuously? I expect that the market for intelligent applications that manage background programme power requirements to come into fruition sometime soon.
Maybe there is an opportunity for e-ink screens with faster refresh speeds to be used to extend device battery life. Meantime I predict that the current fad for sexy case designs will be eschewed by those who need to make continuous use of their screens.

 

[jon0844]

The screen is a major killer. As I said, the latest generation chipsets are better - and produce less heat, which further helps avoid throttling to keep up performance but that often isn't the real problem as they already have a host of power saving functions and for a lot of use, your octo-core chip may be running just one core, at the lowest speed. There's not THAT much extra savings to be made that will make a huge difference, compared to the screen that is now packing more pixels and more nits for outdoor viewing.

Any modern Android/Windows/iOS device is already managing things like Wi-Fi and GPS effectively. Even being on doesn't mean it's actually on, and you can see from various apps (or the system monitoring tools) that GPS usage will be minimal, and at varying degrees of accuracy for the task at hand. Likewise Wi-Fi can power save, and mobile data can be disabled.

Signal strength will play a large part, as well as the network technology, time to download data (better to download quickly than drag it out over a slower connection). Given many trains block signals, that puts a further drain on batteries as the phone ramps up the power to keep connected, and is constantly re-registering on the network.

Android N extends the Doze feature to shut down things in the background even quicker than Marshmallow, and also disable more things (if you want) when in standby. Of course, on a train, I suspect few people will stop playing with their phone so the power saving functions are mostly wasted.

iOS also has very good power saving functions, but again, only relevant when you're not using the phone.

eInk has been used on Android, but sales were poor. Sure, the concept could be developed further, but I think manufacturers know people really want the best quality screens because they're using their smartphone to watch HD films on the move, and in some cases in replacement to a large screen TV at home.

Still, watch a film on a smartphone and turn everything off in the background, and things aren't quite so bad as decoding HD video isn't particularly processor intensive. Just don't have the brightness up too high!

At the end of the day, if you carry a portable battery pack with you to charge on the go, you'll be fine. What you then want is to make sure it can charge your device as quickly as possible - so look for something with Quick Charge 2/3 or any other fast charging tech.

 

[mbreckers]

Probably tripped the fuse the second someone else in that coach plugged something else in

All I know is the ticket examiner wasn't overly chuffed when he spotted her, they were having words when I left the train

 

[coppercapped]

Any '250V AC to 5.25v dc 1 amp switched mode power supply with a USB socket' that is generally available retail, let alone for just £4 is definitely consumer quality and only adequate for operation in the benign environment of an office/domestic 230vac supply. It will of course meet the requirements of EN61000, probably the more specific one for IT kit (EN60950) which will clear it for office/lab/domestic supplies and a digital comms environment. In emissions terms it will probably meet EN55022 but that is hardly an issue as the environment in the train will not only have considerable heavy current interference from traction and OLE switching, but it would seen that almost every passenger will be radiating up to 2W of UHF RF from their phones at times.
The real problem is the surges from the on board ac supplies not only via any direct connection but also from induced current in the wiring.



'Surprisingly Robust' would not get qualification for the installation. There would need to be a defined immunity from surges caused by load dumps in the traction equipment where motor power lifts can be up to 2MW on a 4-car EMU. The surge would appear on any secondary of the main transformer. The train systems, e.g. lighting, doors, heating, comms, PIS, - even wi-fi, would all be designed especially for continuous use in that environment and the system including them qualified before delivery. It would also be re-certified before release from any on-board electrical maintenance. A live railway would not be able to install anything less than kit of that quality however trivial a failure and its consequences was to the main job of running trains. Kit appropriate for on-board use comes at a much higher price than anything that consumers are ever likely to see for sale, and it has to be system engineered into the train's electrical system rather than hanging it on any ac or dc voltage that is convenient. Then comes proving that it is actually OK.



As I've said above, emissions requirements, (conducted or radiated) are not likely to be difficult to meet in the heavy industrial environment of a train, its the power surges, mainly conducted via supplies, that will require something more professional to be located and installed in a way that doesn't compromise even that kit's compliant performance.
Ironically, providing relatively clean ac power would probably be easier in some respects on a simple DC motored EMU of the '60s. The transformer was a much heavier iron device, the motors were resistance regulated instead of electronic and currents were about half of present levels, lighting was tungsten and DC power units such as would be used on mobile devices would also have had simple iron-cored transformer/rectifier/capacitor electronics.
When the AM9s were introduced, I was at school, rail tickets were cardboard and the only mobile phones around had two cocoa tins and a piece of string.

A couple of years ago a small company based in Derby called Data Alchemists gave a talk to one of the branches of the Railway Division of the IMechE about a small traffic monitoring device fitted to the cab of most (every?) Southern Railway emu. It consisted of a simple Raspberry Pi computer <http://www.raspberrypi.org> costing about £20 together with a GPS receiver, a connection to the AWS to see whether the bell or the horn had been activated and a data-only GSM phone. Power came from the train. It's all in a box about 6 inches long, 4 inches wide and 2 inches deep with a total cost of around £125. It's easily removable as one of the requirements was that when trains are handed back at the end of the lease they could be returned in the same condition as they were at the start.

That's all - it is not safety critical and needed no such approvals. Basically the kit is intended to help in traffic monitoring as part of an exercise in improving sectional running times using statistics collected over a period and identifying hot-spots where significant delays occur - such as stations where the scheduled dwell time is too short or poor timetabling, or regulation, at junctions. It reports back at very short intervals its position, its speed and what the AWS did. By correlating the data the operator can use a web-based display showing the real-time position (to a finer granularity than the signalling system can achieve) and speed of every train on its network and whether it is being held at, or delayed by signals. All sorts of information can be presented, such as the average running time of all trains from East Croydon to Clapham Junction over the last hour, day, week, month or whatever one wishes. Or the number of times over the last month the 15.15 from Horsham was held at Three Bridges waiting for a path. And so on.

It obviously shouldn't have worked because of all the reasons you gave - domestic equipment can't cope with power surges seen in trains, all sorts of safety tests have to be made, there's interference. And so on and so forth.

But it did work - and I have held one in my hand.

 

[AM9]

... It obviously shouldn't have worked because of all the reasons you gave - domestic equipment can't cope with power surges seen in trains, all sorts of safety tests have to be made, there's interference. And so on and so forth.

But it did work - and I have held one in my hand.

I'm sure thjat it did what the railway wanted, but it wasa not for the public's use so the supplier and the TOC carried the risk. That's got nothing to do with a permanent installation provided for unattended use by the public with their property. I can just imagine the uproar following one or more failures of passengers' precious devices.
That arrogant twit on the Overground train last year plugged his phone charger into an outlet that was provided for depot use when the train's traction circuits were not powered. It was fed directly from the trains low voltage hotel supply so was potentially subject to surges from load dumps when the train was in motion. It is a shame that his phone wasn't damaged to convince the doubters that the notice prohibiting its use by the public was not a petty railway rule but a genuine attempt to protect anything plugged into it.
Whether they like it or not, the railway has a duty of care especially to the safety of anybody who may legally be on its property. That care also extends done. The only way legally to prove that is to verify that all facilities are compatible with their intended use. Such verification will involve tests to appropriate standards on a scheduled basis. Hardly comparable with a demostration of a lash-up in the comparably protected environment of a cab. Even so, I doubt whether electronics would be allowed into an operational area of the train without a safety and interoperability assessment which would have included a DC power supply compatible with both the connected device and the quality of the 'train supply' that you mentioned. The size of the box that supplies this kit has no relevance to it's suitability to the supply.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm sure thjat it did what the railway wanted, but it wasa not for the public's use so the supplier and the TOC carried the risk. That's got nothing to do with a permanent installation provided for unattended use by the public with their property. I can just imagine the uproar following one or more failures of passengers' precious devices.
That arrogant twit on the Overground train last year plugged his phone charger into an outlet that was provided for depot use when the train's traction circuits were not powered. It was fed directly from the trains low voltage hotel supply so was potentially subject to surges from load dumps when the train was in motion. It is a shame that his phone wasn't damaged to convince the doubters that the notice prohibiting its use by the public was not a petty railway rule but a genuine attempt to protect anything plugged into it.
Whether they like it or not, the railway has a duty of care especially to the safety of anybody who may legally be on its property. That care also extends done. The only way legally to prove that is to verify that all facilities are compatible with their intended use. Such verification will involve tests to appropriate standards on a scheduled basis. Hardly comparable with a demostration of a lash-up in the comparably protected environment of a cab. Even so, I doubt whether electronics would be allowed into an operational area of the train without a safety and interoperability assessment which would have included a DC power supply compatible with both the connected device and the quality of the 'train supply' that you mentioned. The size of the box that supplies this kit has no relevance to it's suitability to the supply.

It was not a 'lash-up' - that is just insulting to Mr McFadden and Data Alchemists. One of these boxes is, or was, fitted to most cabs, possibly every cab, of the the Southern Railway's emu fleet. They deliver valuable traffic information.

Contrary to your implication, we were told explicitly that no safety approvals were needed. In answer to one question about interference and power surges and the like the answer was that modern emus are 'quite benign' in terms of EMC in that power levels are controlled electronically and smoothly and the days of voltage spikes due to contactors breaking heavy currents are past.

I know that the size of the box is not relevant to its suitability to the supply - I quoted dimensions simply to give an idea of the size of the thing. It was clearly said that it had two connections to the train - one was power, one was to the AWS circuits to determine whether the horn or bell had sounded. It was simple, it was cheap, it was quick to develop and install and it worked. How not like the railway...

If the railway really didn't want the public to plug things into sockets, then the sockets should either have been hidden or they should not have looked like domestic 13A ones.

I appreciate that the requirements for publicly accessible power circuits may be a bit more stringent - but finding a solution will certainly not be as difficult as you claim. For the sake of 0.05% increase in coach mass and a few hundred pounds extra in a vehicle which costs £1.5 million, why not show the punters that you appreciate their custom?

 

[AM9]

Contrary to your implication, we were told explicitly that no safety approvals were needed. In answer to one question about interference and power surges and the like the answer was that modern emus are 'quite benign' in terms of EMC in that power levels are controlled electronically and smoothly and the days of voltage spikes due to contactors breaking heavy currents are past.

If the 'lash-up' or whatever you want to call it didn't need 'safety approvals', then there would have been a risk assessment conducted and the product would be run under very specific conditions with no flexibility which may have meant using a protected power outlet in the cab. Probably each one still supported by the original engineers rather than general maintenance.

I know that the size of the box is not relevant to its suitability to the supply - I quoted dimensions simply to give an idea of the size of the thing. It was clearly said that it had two connections to the train - one was power, one was to the AWS circuits to determine whether the horn or bell had sounded. It was simple, it was cheap, it was quick to develop and install and it worked. How not like the railway...

That confirms what I said above, i.e. it was experimental kit and as such nothing to do with this discussion on 'Plugs, electronic devices on trains' which is about providing power outlets for 'public' i.e. passenger use. It couldn't have been anything else if it didn't have a type approval (think 'CE' mark).

If the railway really didn't want the public to plug things into sockets, then the sockets should either have been hidden or they should not have looked like domestic 13A ones.

No, anybody travelling unsupervised on a train should be able to read simple english. They don't need to know why they can't use it. If they still ignore the notices and their kit is damaged, can you imagine them getting any sympathy, let alone compensation? They would just be turned away.

I appreciate that the requirements for publicly accessible power circuits may be a bit more stringent - but finding a solution will certainly not be as difficult as you claim. For the sake of 0.05% increase in coach mass and a few hundred pounds extra in a vehicle which costs £1.5 million, why not show the punters that you appreciate their custom?

Why, because:
a) it will be a lot more than 'a few hundred pounds', and then there is the through-life cost of it
b) technology will move on and power outlets will not be relevant for most of the rolling stock's future life
c) the weight thing is really only relevant for class 700s
d) metro services, which is where this discussion started (class 707s), are there to provide a necessary service, - not attract even more passengers in their own right. The traffic is guaranteed, the line capacity is constrained and the TOCs are commercial profit seeking businesses operating in a pseudo privatised railway, so they don't need to provide inducements for the few passengers who can't remember to charge their own devices or choose not to purchase the right equipment for their business or leisure needs.

 

[Emblematic]

Why, because:
a) it will be a lot more than 'a few hundred pounds', and then there is the through-life cost of it
b) technology will move on and power outlets will not be relevant for most of the rolling stock's future life
c) the weight thing is really only relevant for class 700s
d) metro services, which is where this discussion started (class 707s), are there to provide a necessary service, - not attract even more passengers in their own right. The traffic is guaranteed, the line capacity is constrained and the TOCs are commercial profit seeking businesses operating in a pseudo privatised railway, so they don't need to provide inducements for the few passengers who can't remember to charge their own devices or choose not to purchase the right equipment for their business or leisure needs.

Nonetheless, despite all the reasons you give, the captive passengers of the class 707s will have the benefit of plug sockets, and plenty of them. I think the difference is simply the date of the order, in the mid-teens these things are now regarded as basic requirements, overriding other arguments.

 

[PowerLee]

Why don't people who are concerned about there device running out of juice bring there own power bank instead of expecting the train operator to provide a socket & electricity for free?

 

[AM9]

Why don't people who are concerned about there device running out of juice bring there own power bank instead of expecting the train operator to provide a socket & electricity for free?

Mainly because they think that their personal wants should be funded by all other passengers/public funds. There are people like that throughout society.

 

[coppercapped]

If the 'lash-up' or whatever you want to call it didn't need 'safety approvals', then there would have been a risk assessment conducted and the product would be run under very specific conditions with no flexibility which may have meant using a protected power outlet in the cab. Probably each one still supported by the original engineers rather than general maintenance.

Which century are you living in?

The device consisted of a Raspberry Pi computer, a GPS module, a GSM phone module, a power supply, some wires and a box. There are no moving parts in it.

It cost £125 - it would be an order of magnitude more expensive to do fault finding than just replace the box.

That confirms what I said above, i.e. it was experimental kit and as such nothing to do with this discussion on 'Plugs, electronic devices on trains' which is about providing power outlets for 'public' i.e. passenger use. It couldn't have been anything else if it didn't have a type approval (think 'CE' mark).

The original tenor of your argument was that nothing could be added to a train without meeting all sorts of safety and EMC requirements.

No, anybody travelling unsupervised on a train should be able to read simple english. They don't need to know why they can't use it.

Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:

The days of command and control have passed. Get used to it.

Why, because:
a) it will be a lot more than 'a few hundred pounds', and then there is the through-life cost of it
b) technology will move on and power outlets will not be relevant for most of the rolling stock's future life
c) the weight thing is really only relevant for class 700s
d) metro services, which is where this discussion started (class 707s), are there to provide a necessary service, - not attract even more passengers in their own right. The traffic is guaranteed, the line capacity is constrained and the TOCs are commercial profit seeking businesses operating in a pseudo privatised railway, so they don't need to provide inducements for the few passengers who can't remember to charge their own devices or choose not to purchase the right equipment for their business or leisure needs.

Your point (d) is actually the real reason you think passengers' shouldn't be appreciated or offered some creature comforts....it's their own fault for travelling, they should put up with that which they are offered, you don't like the way 'the railways' are organised and you think they are stupid.

Glad that's cleared up then.

 

[AM9]

Which century are you living in?

The device consisted of a Raspberry Pi computer, a GPS module, a GSM phone module, a power supply, some wires and a box. There are no moving parts in it.

It cost £125 - it would be an order of magnitude more expensive to do fault finding than just replace the box.

What has 'moving parts' got to do with it?

The original tenor of your argument was that nothing could be added to a train without meeting all sorts of safety and EMC requirements.

I have no idea what your experience of planning and installing equipment in industrial environments in the 21st century is (or even post 1973 if the original aspects of the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/eec are being considered), but hopefully UK railway operators don't consider it all irrelevant. In reality, you can connect two fully approved items together and create a non-compliant system. If nothing ever goes wrong and local compliance officers are negligent in stopping such practice, then they might get away with it. If a temporary or makeshift equipment is to be deployed, it can under certain rules be deployed following a risk assessment by a competent person or body. I presume that some responsible person arranged for this gadget despite the presentation claiming that nothing was done in that area.

The days of command and control have passed. Get used to it.

The reason why notices are important is that it absolves the TOC (in this case) from liability provided it meets the necessary health and safety requirements. The health of mobile devices is not covered even if their owners feel mortally wounded when their arrogance deprives them of their use.

Your point (d) is actually the real reason you think passengers' shouldn't be appreciated or offered some creature comforts....it's their own fault for travelling, they should put up with that which they are offered, you don't like the way 'the railways' are organised and you think they are stupid.

Glad that's cleared up then.

You can make whatever comment you like if it helps you clear it up in your own mind. However it is naïve to think that a transport service operating in a capacity limited infrastructure part funded from the public purse, and managed by a profit seeking commercial company would behave any differently when their customers have limited alternatives and the demand is rising faster than for decades. I don't think that is really what the general travelling public wants to hear, but they shouldn't be blind to the reality of the situation.

 

[coppercapped]

What has 'moving parts' got to do with it?




I have no idea what your experience of planning and installing equipment in industrial environments in the 21st century is (or even post 1973 if the original aspects of the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/eec are being considered), but hopefully UK railway operators don't consider it all irrelevant. In reality, you can connect two fully approved items together and create a non-compliant system. If nothing ever goes wrong and local compliance officers are negligent in stopping such practice, then they might get away with it. If a temporary or makeshift equipment is to be deployed, it can under certain rules be deployed following a risk assessment by a competent person or body. I presume that some responsible person arranged for this gadget despite the presentation claiming that nothing was done in that area.



The reason why notices are important is that it absolves the TOC (in this case) from liability provided it meets the necessary health and safety requirements. The health of mobile devices is not covered even if their owners feel mortally wounded when their arrogance deprives them of their use.



You can make whatever comment you like if it helps you clear it up in your own mind. However it is naïve to think that a transport service operating in a capacity limited infrastructure part funded from the public purse, and managed by a profit seeking commercial company would behave any differently when their customers have limited alternatives and the demand is rising faster than for decades. I don't think that is really what the general travelling public wants to hear, but they shouldn't be blind to the reality of the situation.

To get back to this debate, and I hope that this response answers your questions and you try at least to understand and appreciate the points I am trying to make.

This is not really about supplying power sockets or radio-frequency charging plates on trains. It is much more about the attitude that certain members of ‘the railway’ family have to their passengers - or more accurately as 70% of railway income now comes directly from them in fares - their customers.

It is clear that your opinion is that the installation of power outlets whether 13A-type or USB sockets or a mixture of the two would be difficult in the context of a suburban train because the additional mass and hence additional train operating costs, the safety/EMC issues, the additional installation costs and the on-going maintenance requirements would not be justified in view of the trains already being full and the service being part funded from the public purse.

Others have claimed that changes in the battery and charging technologies used in portable consumer communications devices will anyway render any power supply connections obsolete in a few years so it is not necessary to add them.

I maintain that while these arguments have some merit, none of them is strong enough to be a reason not to give passengers access to a source of power. In spite of the difficulties seen in safety approvals the fact remains that these are surmountable is shown by the number of trains either equipped with, or being modified with power sockets. Even my local buses have USB sockets in the seats. It is do-able, it is not rocket technology and some transport operators obviously feel that it helps their business.

Whether or not you consider 'smartphones' to be fashion accessories or that they should be made with larger batteries is beside the point. They exist as they do because people buy them - they have essentially wiped out the earlier generations of 'feature’ and simple mobile phones. Whether that is right or wrong is by the way - one has to deal with the situation as it now exists.

More and more services are being developed for mobile devices - one of which is the supply of up-to-date travel information geared to the requirements of the individual user and, what is more significant for my argument, the use of the mobile device as a holder for one's travel token, aka 'ticket'. This can be purchased on-line and downloaded to the device and read by bar-code sensors on the ticket gate using Near Field Communications or in clear text on the screen by the traveller or by a revenue protection person using the Mk 1 eyeball or a portable reader using NFC. However, if the battery runs flat during the journey, the ticket is not readable (it will not be lost as it is stored in non-volatile storage) but this could lead to embarrassment and time wasting while 'the railway' tries to show the passenger doesn't have a ticket and the passenger insists he has one, he hasn't lost it - it's in the phone - but he simply can't show it.

So 'the railway' demands that the passenger now buys a ticket for this journey, as he can't show that he already has one, and should then claim a re-fund. Within a few years it could well be that the passenger does not travel with either cash or a credit card but relies on 'ApplePay’, or a similar service from other manufacturers…and the device now has a flat battery. This is obviously now a case for the BTP...

It's all too easy to push the blame onto the passenger and say that it's his duty or responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient charge in his phone to last the journey. As I have previously posted it is easy to see scenarios where this is not possible and that this is not due to any sin of omission by the passenger - and if 'the railway' does not want to generate yet more column inches on the way it mistreats and mishandles its passengers it has to be seen to be doing something to help. This is even more true if 'the railway' sees the future in mobile phone ticketing which can significantly reduce ticket issuing costs which in turn is especially important for short journeys with low value tickets. At the same time "electronic tickets" will give 'the railway' a huge database of accurate, up-to-date travel information, collected essentially free of charge, which can be used for, among other things, traffic planning purposes.

So, even for suburban trains the addition of outlets for passengers to be able to charge their devices makes good sense. For Thameslink it makes even more sense - although the average journey may be short there will be a significant number of longer, around an hour or more, journeys which means the chances of a flat battery increase and, at the same time, the value of the unreadable ticket will be higher. The argument that the trains are full so that these trifles, power outlets, aren’t worth adding is also a canard - outside the peak periods there is space available and I always thought that ‘the railway’ wanted to attract more off-peak customers. Adding power sockets gives the potential passengers one fewer reason for not taking the train.

It was asked why should ‘the railway’ supply people with free electricity. The response was

Mainly because they think that their personal wants should be funded by all other passengers/public funds. There are people like that throughout society.

Or, ignoring the arrogance, possibly because it’s good business, especially off-peak. I stayed in an Ibis hotel in France last week and it had a ‘Power Bloc’ on the bedroom desk which consisted of 3 Schuko and 2 USB sockets in the form of a small cube on a cable. The cost of the ‘Bloc’ and the minuscule quantity of electricity I consumed was covered by the room fees. Railway passengers also buy their tickets and in the case of publicly-supported operations they also pay taxes - the source of the ‘public funds’. In case you don’t understand the implication - they have paid for their ‘personal wants’ either directly or indirectly. No reason not to fit sockets.

The arguments against adding power outlets because of increased train mass is nonsense. I used figures for the mass of domestic sockets not because I suggest using them ‘as is’ (which I have clearly stated is not the case) but because it added facts about likely masses. A twin 13A domestic socket with 2 USB outlets, in plastic, weighs around 350g and a metal version suitable for use in ‘factories, workshops, plant rooms, warehouses, schools and hospitals’ weighs just over 400g. Even if additional screening and protection circuits were needed for each socket modern power electronic components will not add more than a few grammes to this mass so I stand by my reckoning that at the outside it will add 0.05% to the train’s mass. That this is specially significant for Thameslink because of the traffic density is absolute rubbish. A couple of wheel flats will load the structures more than this marginal increase in wheel loading - all of which is fully sprung by the way. Other routes have similar masses travelling over them, the GW Main Line has around 20tph between Airport Junction and Paddington in the peak and these are not only heavier but also travel at speeds up to 125mph, much faster than the Thameslink trains do trundling through central London. No-one is suggesting throwing the charging points out of IEP, HST and HEx coaches to reduce track wear.

I could go on to refute the other points, but this post would then become too long and too boring.

My main objection is to the attitude shown in many of the posts that the passenger should be grateful for what he or she is offered as we, ‘the railway’, know what’s best for you.

Large sections of ’The Railway’ apparently don’t know what’s best for their passengers - but what is glaringly obvious is that they seem to knows very well what makes life easiest for them.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think a train that for a lot of the time is like a London Overground or tube service should have people getting all tangled up in wires. That's why there aren't even seat back tables.

For an Intercity train where there could be 20-30 minutes between stops, and far more warning of an approaching station, it's totally different.

IMO.

 

[grumblingalong]

I like to be able to plug my phone in, it's more convenient than carrying round a battery pack or limiting my phone use.

I think, as I'm sure most level headed vaguely modern people will agree, that it's a relatively small thing TOCs and ROSCOs can do to greatly improve the end user experience.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I like to be able to plug my phone in, it's more convenient than carrying round a battery pack or limiting my phone use.

I think, as I'm sure most level headed vaguely modern people will agree, that it's a relatively small thing TOCs and ROSCOs can do to greatly improve the end user experience.

Agreed. Also the idea that they will be obsolete soon due to wireless charging is a bit silly: just because it may be feasible to roll-out on trains in 15 years or so doesn't mean that all phones incapable of it will immediately go out of use.

 

[jon0844]

Agreed. Also the idea that they will be obsolete soon due to wireless charging is a bit silly: just because it may be feasible to roll-out on trains in 15 years or so doesn't mean that all phones incapable of it will immediately go out of use.

Well, Samsung, LG, Huawei and the like will probably adopt new tech really quick. Nobody will take much notice or support the tech widely (ie. current wireless charging solutions) until Apple invents it. Then everyone will support and adopt it...

 

[grumblingalong]

Agreed. Also the idea that they will be obsolete soon due to wireless charging is a bit silly: just because it may be feasible to roll-out on trains in 15 years or so doesn't mean that all phones incapable of it will immediately go out of use.

And in that case the wiring mainframe is there to allow the installation of the charging points so would be a much easier adaptation if so required.

 

[kevjs]

That is why I previously posted that it would be cheaper for the TOC to issue free portable chargers to regulars.

Cheaper maybe, but safe?

Remember what happened when EE gave out free power bars?
http://www.theguardian.com/business...ower-bar-mobile-phone-chargers-over-fire-risk

Which is better, giving out a free power bar which has been treated god knows how poorly (with the Li-on battery being dropped, charged with a dodgy USB power supply and cable or just life expired) or installing USB ports where the railway operator can ensure they cut out in the event of a short and generally has some knowledge of how well they've been treated?

With USB charging and (especially) 4G are starting to become the norm on buses (e.g. on Trent Barton's https://www.trentbarton.co.uk/rainbowreloaded buses which vary between 43 and 75 minutes end to end) why shouldn't the railway offer similar niceties to its customers who may well be travelling much further.

As for tangling in wires - you could make the sockets really accessible (like the Thomas Cook airline ones - right in front of you on the seat in-fronts headrest) or put them in the arms of the seat - in the former it's a darn sight easier to unplug them than reaching over the passenger in the seat next to you to pull a plug out hidden behind there legs and in the latter it doesn't get in the way in the first place).

Even if standard 3 pin plug sockets aren't provided (to stop eejits using straighteners) providing standard 230V outlets would still allow you to migrate from USB-A 1Amp sockets to USB-C 3 Amp sockets (and combo variants there of) buy just changing the faceplate. (Although getting those in headrests/armrests probably isn't as easy as placing in the "wall" off the carriage)

 

[coppercapped]

Cheaper maybe, but safe?

Remember what happened when EE gave out free power bars?
http://www.theguardian.com/business...ower-bar-mobile-phone-chargers-over-fire-risk

Which is better, giving out a free power bar which has been treated god knows how poorly (with the Li-on battery being dropped, charged with a dodgy USB power supply and cable or just life expired) or installing USB ports where the railway operator can ensure they cut out in the event of a short and generally has some knowledge of how well they've been treated?

With USB charging and (especially) 4G are starting to become the norm on buses (e.g. on Trent Barton's https://www.trentbarton.co.uk/rainbowreloaded buses which vary between 43 and 75 minutes end to end) why shouldn't the railway offer similar niceties to its customers who may well be travelling much further.

As for tangling in wires - you could make the sockets really accessible (like the Thomas Cook airline ones - right in front of you on the seat in-fronts headrest) or put them in the arms of the seat - in the former it's a darn sight easier to unplug them than reaching over the passenger in the seat next to you to pull a plug out hidden behind there legs and in the latter it doesn't get in the way in the first place).

Even if standard 3 pin plug sockets aren't provided (to stop eejits using straighteners) providing standard 230V outlets would still allow you to migrate from USB-A 1Amp sockets to USB-C 3 Amp sockets (and combo variants there of) buy just changing the faceplate. (Although getting those in headrests/armrests probably isn't as easy as placing in the "wall" off the carriage)

Another example of 'being nice to the customer'...

http://www.reading-buses.co.uk/claret-spritzer/

 

[Class377/5]

Interesting that people mention that the TOCs or ROSCOs and those in the industry should make sure that new trains have plugs yet forgetting the original point was the class 700s having no plugs which weren't ordered by a TOC, ROSCO or the industry but a government department. The TOC/ROSCOG
/industry orders all have plugs IIRC.

 

[AM9]

Interesting that people mention that the TOCs or ROSCOs and those in the industry should make sure that new trains have plugs yet forgetting the original point was the class 700s having no plugs which weren't ordered by a TOC, ROSCO or the industry but a government department. The TOC/ROSCOG
/industry orders all have plugs IIRC.

That must mean plenty of space on the 700s as passengers who can't manage without their charging facilities will abandon the Thameslink services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cheaper maybe, but safe?

Remember what happened when EE gave out free power bars?
http://www.theguardian.com/business...ower-bar-mobile-phone-chargers-over-fire-risk

Which is better, giving out a free power bar which has been treated god knows how poorly (with the Li-on battery being dropped, charged with a dodgy USB power supply and cable or just life expired) or installing USB ports where the railway operator can ensure they cut out in the event of a short and generally has some knowledge of how well they've been treated?

The responsibilty of a product's safety by design and manufactured quality is of the manufacturer, and any unreasonable use by the end-user is down to them. Note though, my original comment was that it would be cheaper for the TOC to free-issue regular passengers with free devices.

With USB charging and (especially) 4G are starting to become the norm on buses (e.g. on Trent Barton's https://www.trentbarton.co.uk/rainbowreloaded buses which vary between 43 and 75 minutes end to end) why shouldn't the railway offer similar niceties to its customers who may well be travelling much further.

Buses are an entirely different proposition. They don't have a 50Hz ac supply anyway, so are not subject to the Low Voltage rules. Whatever they want to provide comes from static inverters so grounding, surge etc., isn't really an issue. The other major issue is that there is sometimes competition on buses for business, so upgrading some buses is a marketing exercise.

As for tangling in wires - you could make the sockets really accessible (like the Thomas Cook airline ones - right in front of you on the seat in-fronts headrest) or put them in the arms of the seat - in the former it's a darn sight easier to unplug them than reaching over the passenger in the seat next to you to pull a plug out hidden behind there legs and in the latter it doesn't get in the way in the first place).

Even if standard 3 pin plug sockets aren't provided (to stop eejits using straighteners) providing standard 230V outlets would still allow you to migrate from USB-A 1Amp sockets to USB-C 3 Amp sockets (and combo variants there of) buy just changing the faceplate. (Although getting those in headrests/armrests probably isn't as easy as placing in the "wall" off the carriage)

Thereby slowing passenger egress, so the 'bright idea' in the paragraph above won't go anywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or, ignoring the arrogance, possibly because it’s good business, especially off-peak. I stayed in an Ibis hotel in France last week and it had a ‘Power Bloc’ on the bedroom desk which consisted of 3 Schuko and 2 USB sockets in the form of a small cube on a cable. The cost of the ‘Bloc’ and the minuscule quantity of electricity I consumed was covered by the room fees. Railway passengers also buy their tickets and in the case of publicly-supported operations they also pay taxes - the source of the ‘public funds’. In case you don’t understand the implication - they have paid for their ‘personal wants’ either directly or indirectly. No reason not to fit sockets.

It is not unreasoanble for a hotel to provide power outlets for a variety of customer uses as an overnight room is really a 'home' for the night. For those on holiday or business, the correct place to charge a device that they regard as essential is overnight. Trains (except sleepers) are not 'homes' for the night, day or even part of the day, however, intercity/long distance journeys could benefit from some power availability, especially where average passenger times would be in excess of 2 hours or so.

Contrary to some of the posts here, not everybody gets themselves in a position where they perceive a 'need' for these outlets, so it is a case of everbody paying for a few to benefit.

 

[sarahj]

Amazingly in the last month I've had two punters come up asking about power to charge their phones, but not actually having a charger on them.
So let me get this straight, you're asking about charging your phone, yes, but you don't have a charger, yes.....right.

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: