Yesterday I was travelling in a group back from Jersey to Gatwick and we missed the flight. We literally missed the doors closing by five seconds which meant we had to wait another 2.5 hours for the next flight home.

When you miss a flight (and it's the first time I've done so) you start asking 'where could I have made up the time'? Now admittedly we were cutting it fine but what really thwarted us or rather me was getting through security. I'd already checked-in online and printed off my boarding pass so the only thing I needed to do was get through security (maybe I was lulled into a false sense of time hence the cutting it fine bit). Anyway the queue for security was long and slow, for Jersey, and as I was carrying a laptop, cables and general work paraphernalia I was pulled aside and everything had to come out to be checked. This wasn't the first time I've been pulled aside at airport security carrying the same bag and contents; having it done at Belfast where they swab everything for explosive residue was much more unnerving (not that I had anything to worry about but you get niggling thoughts). However it took just long enough for us to miss the flight.

After pointlessly pleading with the gate staff to let us on the plane we were escorted back to the unsecure part of the airport and 2.5 hours later we had to go through security again. Yet again the bag had to be searched and contents examined. It was almost comical this time. Second time around we'd left plenty of time and did make the flight.

Now even though I was a bit miffed about all the security time-wasting I understand the necessity of it (one wonders if there's another way though). What does strike me as ludicrous is that there have been reports in the media recently that they're thinking of bringing the same style of security into mainline railway stations. Please don't, it'll cause chaos and there's no way to realistically cover all the entry points to the rail network. In my mind it would be a colossal waste of money.

My regular station, Waterloo, handles more people a day than Heathrow. I just can't imagine scanning even a small percentage of Waterloo's commuters; it would be a commuter's nightmare. As a regular commuter I try and make my journey as hassle free as possible. For example, I recently switched back from an Oyster card to a paper one because they are fractionally quicker in the rush hour when you come across Revenue Protection Officers (what was wrong with 'Ticket Inspector'?) as I do daily; they can read the front of the paper ticket as opposed to using a relatively slow hand-held device to scan them.

Airport-style security in railway stations would be the commuter's equivalent of the congestion charge. It would invariably deter people from using trains. In fact my extra-cynical side thinks the regular train commuter would end up paying more for it if it was introduced.

PS Am thinking I should rename this blog or add a new topic 'Rants about Waterloo/Commuting'.

A couple of years ago the displays for train times and platforms at Waterloo Station (London) where changed from, let's call them 'Clatterboards' for want of the proper name, to the current set of 40 or so flat-panel computer displays. Now I've used Waterloo as a commuter daily for the past five years and I'm still questioning whether the implementation of these displays couldn't be done better.

Being in the IT business myself I'm not adverse to the march of change from analogue to digital systems and I can see the benefits of the current display; for example they allow combinations of routes that may not have been possible with the predefined set of boards on the Clatterboards. However when designing a replacement system I would argue that it at least needs to incorporate all of the benefits of the previous system from the perspective of all users. From the perspective of a regular commuter they fall somewhat short and their potential for improvement has not, in my mind, been fully exploited.

The advantages of the Clatterboard system were:

• The details for each train generally stayed in the same position.
• There was an audible clatter when platforms were announced that meant you didn't have to be looking at the boards all the time; you could read a paper and only glance up each time the boards were changed.
• The size and position of the boards meant that everyone had to stand back leaving room near the platforms for other people to move round freely. You could also see the boards from quite a distance which meant that the crowd was rather dispersed over a larger area.

Compare this with the current screens system.

• The details of each train now move. The trains are ordered chronologically with the next to leave are nearer the platforms. As each train leaves the details are shifted along one. This has two side effects:
  1. If you take your eyes off the screens the train you were looking at may have moved and you loose it.
  2. Crowds tend to bunch nearer the platforms (especially because the screens are difficult to see from any great distance). This crowding causes problems for people trying to get to their platform. Surely this could have been anticipated with a bit of simple egress analysis.
• There is no audible indication that the screens have changed. I now find myself using the surge of the crowd to work out that a platform has been announced.

There's no point ranting about this without suggesting some improvements. Now I'm not advocating going back to the Clatterboards but I am suggesting there may be alternative ways to use the screens to overcome these problems. So here goes:

Don't move the stuff on the screens

Either don't move the details of a train once it has been placed on the screen or, my preference, really use the power of the screens and provide an A-Z system where train destinations are listed alphabetically from one side of the bank of screens to the other.

With the current system being a regular commuter I know there are certain trains going to certain destinations that I can catch so I look for these but people who use Waterloo only occasionally don't have this advantage. They need to scan the entire set of screens (which are changing as they do this) to find a train going to the destination they want. With an A-Z system this is made much easier and if the next train to a particular destination isn't the fastest option, then why not display the next and fastest train for that destination.

Spreading the times out over all screens should thin the crowd and move them away from the platforms to allow easier access. This brings me onto the next point.

Re-orient the screens

Shortly after they were installed the bank of screens near platform 19 proved too problematic in their original location; they faced the exit from the tube and crowds would build as they hovered to see where their train was leaving from and this would cause people behind problems as they attempted to get off the escalators. To overcome this the bank of screens were changed to face away from the platforms. This quite successfully has created a clear area free from people near the to exit the tube and has cleared a pathway for people to get to the lower-numbered platforms. Why not do the same with the other banks of screens?

Clatter, clatter

Finally, provide an audible noise that indicates when platforms have been changed on the screens, other than the announcer of course.

Anyone got any other ideas?

If you happen to be one of the very few people who have a CM11 USB X10 controller and a Mac running OS X then you may have discovered that this particular CM11 doesn't come with any Mac drivers (not that any do as far as I know). However the two can be used together because the chip used in the USB-Serial converter is from Prolific, who have a driver, compatible even with Mac OS X 10.4. You can download it from here. From my very rudimentary testing the driver seems to work. Your mileage may vary, but hey, it's worth a try.