DLR.

There have been a series of evening road closures over the last couple of weeks in both Erith and Lower Belvedere. The reason for this has been the movement of some very large and extremely heavy industrial equipment from the Erith Construction depot and marine wharf in Manor Road, Erith to a location in Lower Belvedere. The movement of these out sized loads has meant that residents were unable to park in the affected roads during the time that the loads were being transported. This kind of thing happens a couple of times every year, but on this occasion the main contractor only communicated to local residents via a printed leaflet through their front doors less than two days before the start of the operation. It has been communicated to me that this was unacceptably short notice under the circumstances. You can see one of the out sized loads in the photograph above. Click on it to see a larger version. I understand that a number of residents who were not aware of the out sized loads being transported outside of their properties had their cars forcibly moved. I also understand that some residents lost telephone communication. Several of the overhead landlines were disconnected to stop them fouling the large loads as they went down the road. I understand there's a necessity for this kind of operation to be undertaken, but at the same time it is down to the transportation contractor and principally the project manager to ensure that communication to all parties is undertaken in a timely manner. I speak from experience as I hold a widely recognised professional project management qualification. What do you think? Comment and feedback to me at hugh.neal@gmail.com.

One of my favoured sources of accurate and up to date information on IT and technical related issues is the excellent website – The Register. Stories that get into the general press usually break on The Register at least a day earlier, and in greater detail. The site is very tongue in cheek, and often finds a humorous angle on technology issues. It broke a story recently that caught my attention; an employment agency are looking for programmers who have skills in writing and maintaining software for the DEC PDP-11 series of mini computers. What is so unusual about that? I hear some of you ask. Well, the PDP 11 computer range was first introduced in 1970, and went out of general production in 1990. The machines were large – even a relatively small installation would be the equivalent of three or four full height fridge freezers, plus a terminal the size of a small school desk. By any modern standards they are museum pieces – indeed, The National Museum of Computing does have some examples of PDP hardware in its collection. When they were first offered for sale, they offered a relatively cheap and reliable entry into business and industrial computing; indeed many PDP 11’s were used to control machine tools in factories – some of the early car welding robots were controlled in this way. Other key users were (and in some cases still are) large banks and insurance companies, who require reliability and very high up time over performance and the latest features. Quite often the old computers such as the PDP 11 range are still employed on the “back end” systems that the customers (and indeed many of the staff) never see. Many of such organisations are exceptionally risk averse, and would rather support an ancient technology than take a chance on upgrading to a modern alternative that may have new and undocumented bugs, possibly causing loss of earnings and damage to reputation. I know that there are a small handful of independent contractors who earn a very good living continuing to support these old clunkers – because the knowledge required to maintain and repair the hardware and software is so specialised, they are able to charge pretty much what they like for their services, as they have their clients “over a barrel” – nice work if you can get it. My first foray into the world of “serious” computers was back in the early 1980’s, when I had a Saturday job as an assistant in Silica Shop in Sidcup. During the 1980’s, Silica Shop were the largest privately owned, independent computer retailers in the UK. They specialised in the early 8 – bit home computers, especially the range made by Atari – for whom they were the European dealers. Silica Shop had its’ HQ in Hatherley Road, Sidcup, where there was a large retail unit on the lower floor of the two storey building, and on the upstairs was a warehouse, an office, and an air conditioned computer room, which housed a large DEC PDP 11- 44 mini  computer - almost identical to the one in the photograph above. As well as working in the shop on Saturdays, I was also able to work during school holidays; during this time I would sometimes be called out of the shop to help the computer system administrator, who for a while made me his unofficial assistant. I learned lots about working with large scale business computers, and all of the basics of system administration – adding and removing users, changing security settings, creating files, running batch processes and the like. Even back then, the 11-44 was quite an elderly piece of kit – the company having purchased the machine second hand, as new they were well over two hundred thousand pounds, depending on the specification and peripherals required. One quirk of the 11-44 operating system was that you could not reformat the large 8 inch floppy disks it used (earlier versions of the machine used reels of magnetic tape). In order to re – use the expensive floppy disks, you first had to manually wipe them of data using a degaussing machine – which was basically a large electromagnet. I think everyone was scared of the degausser – it hummed and buzzed, occasionally emitting a crackle of electricity, accompanied by a faint smell of ozone. I think even by the lax health and safety standards of the time, the machine should have been condemned! What I did to avoid the dreaded machine was looking back, pretty imaginative. The computer room had several old – style telephones with rotary dials. I would place a small pile of disks underneath a phone, then ring it from another extension. The bell ringer built into the phone was an electromagnet, and in ringing it would wipe the disks! Silica Shop wrote their own customer database; what would nowadays be called a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system. Whenever someone came into the shop and bought something, a sales docket would be completed by the shop assistant. It included the buyer's name, address and what they bought, along with an itemised total. Each item of stock was allocated a unique part number, which staff could look up on VT100 computer terminals in the shop, which would also record how many of that particular item were left in stock; the real old hands would know most, if not all of the popular stock item codes off the top of their heads. When the stock level got down to a certain point, the system would automatically place a re – order, and debit the company account accordingly. The system would also target postal advertising at customers according to what they had already purchased – there was no point in sending a leaflet on Atari 800XL software to a customer who had bought a Commodore 64 for example. You can see an example of a typical Silica Shop advertising flyer below - notice the large amount of detailed text - this was a Silica Shop trait - they lumped huge amounts of technical detail into all of their advertising; something that would put off a lot of potential shoppers today. All this is targetted advertising is routine nowadays, but back in 1983 it was unique, and debatably the most sophisticated customer database used anywhere in the United Kingdom. My own thoughts are that if Silica Shop had taken this ground breaking business software and ported it onto the then new IBM PC, they would have had a huge business in selling and supporting enterprise level CRM applications now. Instead they continued to shift boxes of home computers, and eventually went out of business in the mid 1990’s. If the management had employed a more creative vision, Silica could have been a global software name like Oracle now. I have to say that I learned more about computing in my few years working at Silica Shop than I have learned anywhere else. My entire career in IT has been built on stuff I picked up in a quiet side street in Sidcup.

As many long-term readers will know, I do not have any dealings with social media. This is a personal choice. I know that many people feel that they gain a lot of benefit from connecting with others online via services such as Facebook, Instagram and many others. This is not my personal choice. What has become evident over the last few years is that whilst much valuable information can be disseminated via social media, there is also a serious issue of misinformation and potentially legally actionable issues. The following advice was sent to me by someone with more than I of experience of the problems and pitfalls of publishing information online on social media without properly checking it first. I know that some people do this with the best of intentions, but it can lead to all sorts of problems, as the article highlights:- "When considering whether to share social media posts that contain allegations, it's crucial to exercise caution and critical thinking. Here's a breakdown of factors to consider: - Reasons to be cautious about sharing: * Lack of Verification: Social media is rife with unverified information. Allegations can be made without any factual basis, evidence, or due process. Sharing them can spread misinformation. * Reputational Damage: Sharing unproven allegations can unfairly damage the reputation of individuals or organisations, even if the allegations later prove to be false. This can have severe real-world consequences. * Legal Risks: In some cases, sharing false or defamatory allegations could lead to legal action (e.g., libel or slander lawsuits) against the person sharing the post. * Confirmation Bias and Echo Chambers: Sharing posts that align with your existing beliefs without critical evaluation can contribute to echo chambers and reinforce biases, making it harder for accurate information to surface. * Trial by Public Opinion: Social media often bypasses formal investigative processes, leading to "trial by public opinion" where individuals can be condemned without a fair hearing. * Emotional Manipulation: Allegation posts can be designed to evoke strong emotions (anger, outrage, fear), which can override rational judgement and encourage uncritical sharing. * Privacy Concerns: Sharing allegations, especially those involving private individuals, can infringe upon their right to privacy. When it might be justifiable to share (with extreme caution): - * Credible Sources: If the allegations come from highly reputable and verified news organisations that have conducted thorough investigations and provided evidence, sharing their reporting (not just the raw allegation) might be appropriate. * Public Safety Concerns: In rare cases, if an allegation pertains to an immediate and serious public safety risk, and it comes from a credible source (like law enforcement or a trusted community organisation), sharing might be considered. * Raising Awareness for Legitimate Investigations: If a legitimate investigation is underway and a credible source (e.g., law enforcement, a court) is seeking public assistance with specific, verified information, sharing that request might be appropriate. * Whistle blower Situations (with extreme vetting): If you are certain a post is from a legitimate whistle blower revealing significant wrongdoing, and you have independently verified their claims and their identity (which is incredibly difficult to do on social media), then it might be considered. This is very rare. Before sharing, ask yourself:- * Is this information verified? Can I find it reported by multiple, independent, and reputable sources? * What is the source? Is it an anonymous account, a known propagandist, or a credible news organisation? * What is the evidence? Are there specific facts, documents, or testimonies presented, or just claims? * What are the potential consequences of sharing? Could it harm someone unfairly? Could it spread misinformation? * What is my motivation for sharing? Am I sharing it to inform, or to express anger, or to take sides? In summary: The default position should be not to share social media allegation posts unless you have thoroughly vetted them and are absolutely certain of their veracity and the positive impact of sharing outweighs the potential harm. It's far better to err on the side of caution and refrain from spreading unverified information."

A £1.7 billion proposal to extend the Docklands Light Railway to new stations at Beckton Riverside and Thamesmead Waterfront has again been put forward. The tunnelled connection would, TfL says, cut travel times for residents, with journeys to Stratford cut to 25 minutes and to Tottenham Court Road in around 35.  Transport for London has launched a second public consultation on the proposed extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead, via a new tunnel beneath the Thames. Although the stations would be DLR, not part of the London Underground network, they would still feature on the official Tube map, giving the growing area of Thamesmead a long-awaited place on one of the capital’s most recognisable transit visuals. TfL estimates the total economic impact of the scheme to be £15.6 billion, creating the potential for 30,000 new homes and 10,000 jobs across east and southeast London.  In a recent press release, Alex Williams, TfL's chief customer and strategy officer, said: “The case for extending the DLR is clear as it provides a crucial opportunity to create new homes, jobs and economic growth in a significantly under connected part of London. We strongly encourage Londoners to share their views.” The plan follows an initial consultation in 2024, where 75% of respondents supported the proposal. Additional polling by TfL found that a staggering 85% of residents in the area are in favour. Personally I think that in the current economic climate the proposal is somewhat wishful thinking, due to the huge capital outlay involved. 

The end video this week is a short film explaining the DLR extension - specifically that proposed to Thamesmead; it is certainly worth a watch. Comments to me at hugh.neal@gmail.com.