|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 11, 2017 12:07:14 GMT
I see, so you didn't see 'the document' except for its cover, the title and the three FLAs. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with the railway, its engineering and operations. It could have been something to do with office furniture or a dozen other things. Until there is some proper and meaningful reference in the context of the railway it is nothing but an unrelated carelessly tossed curveball. We can speculate that it may be something to do with ticket offices, control rooms, SORs etc, the display portion of a piece of equipment or furniture, station panelling or other surface. I did see the document, I was just saying what was on the cover. The document covered various aspects of LU but only mentioned the codes as being locations but not exactly they were or what they meant. Various aspects of LU? Presumably you don't recall which or you would have specified them. If the codes are locations they could be abandoned stations e.g. CTYR could be City Road on the Northern
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Apr 11, 2017 14:04:55 GMT
I did see the document, I was just saying what was on the cover. The document covered various aspects of LU but only mentioned the codes as being locations but not exactly they were or what they meant. Various aspects of LU? Presumably you don't recall which or you would have specified them. If the codes are locations they could be abandoned stations e.g. CTYR could be City Road on the Northern I think you must have worked for MI5 or something like that. I do recall the various aspects, Operations/Rolling Stock/Signals/Civils/Workshops/Staff.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 14, 2017 22:28:38 GMT
Various aspects of LU? Presumably you don't recall which or you would have specified them. If the codes are locations they could be abandoned stations e.g. CTYR could be City Road on the Northern I think you must have worked for MI5 or something like that. I do recall the various aspects, Operations/Rolling Stock/Signals/Civils/Workshops/Staff. Haha! Quite simply it helps if you proffer what you know when you ask a question, these days I don't really have the time or the inclination to ask lots of questions in order to give a meaningful answer. However, as I am here now another question must follow! Do you happen to know under which particular aspect the codes were referenced?
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Apr 17, 2017 10:59:01 GMT
I think you must have worked for MI5 or something like that. I do recall the various aspects, Operations/Rolling Stock/Signals/Civils/Workshops/Staff. Haha! Quite simply it helps if you proffer what you know when you ask a question, these days I don't really have the time or the inclination to ask lots of questions in order to give a meaningful answer. However, as I am here now another question must follow! Do you happen to know under which particular aspect the codes were referenced? Well I could have said that you worked for the Stasi but they were more harsh than MI5. The codes were not under any individual area sorry it was as if to illustrate them for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 17, 2017 23:20:20 GMT
Haha! Quite simply it helps if you proffer what you know when you ask a question, these days I don't really have the time or the inclination to ask lots of questions in order to give a meaningful answer. However, as I am here now another question must follow! Do you happen to know under which particular aspect the codes were referenced? Well I could have said that you worked for the Stasi but they were more harsh than MI5. The codes were not under any individual area sorry it was as if to illustrate them for whatever reason. That is not possible, if they were shown in the document they had to be referenced or indexed in some way, perhaps under a 'general', 'reference', 'abbreviations' or similar heading. The devil is always in the detail, without detail of any sort with regard to reference one can do nothing but play guessing games and we've done enough of that already!
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Apr 18, 2017 7:35:03 GMT
Well I could have said that you worked for the Stasi but they were more harsh than MI5. The codes were not under any individual area sorry it was as if to illustrate them for whatever reason. That is not possible, if they were shown in the document they had to be referenced or indexed in some way, perhaps under a 'general', 'reference', 'abbreviations' or similar heading. The devil is always in the detail, without detail of any sort with regard to reference one can do nothing but play guessing games and we've done enough of that already! Why is it not possible I have said how it was so there you are. I think this thread just died RIP.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 19, 2017 7:54:50 GMT
That is not possible, if they were shown in the document they had to be referenced or indexed in some way, perhaps under a 'general', 'reference', 'abbreviations' or similar heading. The devil is always in the detail, without detail of any sort with regard to reference one can do nothing but play guessing games and we've done enough of that already! Why is it not possible I have said how it was so there you are. I think this thread just died RIP. Because in a document everything has a heading except the heading! I agree that this thread is dead but it died almost as soon as you put the question. You might have imparted all that you knew that was relevent when you put the question but getting that from you was like drawing teeth. You suggested that I might have been from MI5 or the Stasi but that suggestion would have been better aimed at you for the complete lack of openness when you posed the question. When posing a question to which you hope to obtain a meaningful answer you should always consider the five Ws! Anything you know about the relevance of who, what, when, where and why info related to the question should be offered in order to expedite any forthcoming answers. One can be forgiven for omitting such references once but after a couple of enquiries about relevant detail I would expect you to get the point and state clearly what is known and what is not known. There are literally thousands of 3, 4, 5 or more letter abbreviations and reference codes found in LUL documents and a multitude of systems, locations, equipment, infrastructure, practices, rules, regulations, procedures etc that they refer to. Such may be well established since the days of LRT, LTE, UER, LER, DR, MR, WC, ECCH, GNPR, GNR, CSL, BSW, CWL etc but many more have been added under LUL and particularly with TfL involvement and that of external contractors since the PPP and all that is the WHY. I'm on my ninth session of chemo this week and after eighteen weeks I an feeling rather tired which is the worst of the side effects of all the medication I'm on so I'm off to take a well earned rest which I should perhaps have taken before this thread was extended beyond tube bridge ID plates.
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Apr 19, 2017 11:50:07 GMT
Sorry to hear that you are going through Chemo that is not a very nice treatment to have to under go, I wish you all the best.
|
|
|
Post by York city on Apr 19, 2017 15:51:48 GMT
An innocent question by dave1 treated with utter contempt by a rude and arrogant man. I agree that Chemo is awful but there's no excuse for talking to somebody like that. It's a transport forum, not the high court. Disgraceful rank bad manners.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Apr 20, 2017 7:16:49 GMT
That is a rather harsh comment. I don't think that RT is either rude or arrogant. I think that the thread may have got a little heated along the way, but that is often how any discussion goes - whether online or in real life person to person.
I agree with RT that as much information as possible should be posted when asking a question. Unlike a person to person conversation where any follow-up questions can be answered straight away, an online conversation may take several days of back and forth questions and answers. Therefore, for a speedy solution to the question, the more information available in the beginning the better. I can't comment on this specific thread because I don't know what information Dave1 had to start with.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 20, 2017 8:10:31 GMT
An innocent question by dave1 treated with utter contempt by a rude and arrogant man. I agree that Chemo is awful but there's no excuse for talking to somebody like that. It's a transport forum, not the high court. Disgraceful rank bad manners. I am not arrogant, there were no bad manners and there was no rudeness either from me but clear statement of facts. Chemo is not awful, it is no worse than radiotherapy which I have also had. However, I am on chemo for the rest of my life and it does have side effects, for me the worst of which is tiredness caused by 54 hours of continuous IV treatment over one day in hospital and two days at home once a fortnight. That said, my hands are subject to frequent attack by cetuximab, one of the three IV drugs that I am given, making my fingertips very sore as the skin around my fingernails splits, bleeds and takes weeks to recover just in time to split again. However, it is what it is and life goes on. I need no excuses for my input to the thread, I simply stated that I was feeling tired and it's time I took a break. I can be rude when I am annoyed, stirrers such as yourself annoy me so here you are, if you've got your ears on York city, Foxtrot Oscar!
|
|