[TCUG] Re: Problems with BT Circuits
- From: "sunil budhdeo" <sunilbudhdeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:10:21 +0000
Martin
We at Nottingham and i know that in Leicester the LTU are fitted in the
controller making them more reliable and easy to maintain if the line needs
to be tested before bt get involved (listening to the line).Keeping the LTU
dry also improves its reliability.
Regards
Sunil
>From: "Peter Jones" <peter.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [TCUG] Re: Problems with BT Circuits
>Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:24:05 +0100
>
>Martin,
>
>Yes, BT in Sefton will also fit the LTU in the controller and I agree
>that this is the best location apart from having to get an engineer to
>meet BT should they ever require access. However, it appears that in
>different areas, BT have different standards; some areas allow a
>jointing post, some insist on a pit joint and others insist on
>terminating within the equipment housing...controller.
>
>With regard to the LTU's, the units installed in controllers - like
>Warrington - have a high reliability rate. It would be nice to get a
>common standard from BT though.
>
>Regards
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>Peter Jones
>Project Leader - Traffic Control Systems
>Phone: +44 (0) 151 934 4254
>Fax: +44 (0) 151 922 4514
>Mobile: 07788 100 584
>Peter.Jones (AT) technical.sefton.gov.uk
>Sefton MBC - UTC
>7th Floor
>Balliol House
>Balliol Road
>Bootle
>L20 3NJ
>
> >>> mmccannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 22/10/03 08:06:12 >>>
>Jag,
>
>reading with interest your comments on BT LTUs which we have on all of
>our
>circuits in Warrington, though I am a bit surprised that you are
>putting
>them in their own enclosure. We are actually transfering, over a period
>of
>time, our LTUs into the controller and are finding that failure rates
>are
>greatly improved as the controller cabinet stays relatively warm and
>dry.
>
>I was wondering if locally BT were refusing to allow the LTU to be
>mounted
>in the controller as in the past we have met with similar resistance.
>
>Martin McCannon
>UTMC Manager
>
>Warrington Borough Council
>Tel: 01925 443253
>Mob: 07730 075854
>Fax: 01925 443255
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jag Morar [mailto:jagmorar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 21 October 2003 15:52
>To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: [TCUG] Re: Problems with BT Circuits
>
>
>I am so pleased to see someone finally taking up this issue. It
>seriously
>needs to be escalated to the highest level possible.
>
>In February 2003, TfL senior management took it up with BT's director
>of
>government accounts , John Anderson. Sadly, in my opinion while that
>got the
>various parties at BT together to come and have a technical meeting to
>discuss all the problems that we were having, it did not resolve the
>main
>issue of the robustness of the line and maintenance. I have itemised
>this
>and a number of other problems that we have encountered during the UTC
>trials of the Microsense TCAM OTU.
>
>1. Many will know that TCAM is (cheap and nearly UTMC compliant) I/P
>based,
>outstation that can work at speeds of at least 16 times that of the
>fastest
>OTU that is currently used in the UK. This of course means that for it
>to
>work flawlessly, with near to no UTC errors, requires an EPS25 (or
>better
>if they had one) leased lines from BT. Now this specification is only
>guaranteed if you have an LTU or NTU at both ends and so far we have
>installed the LTU inside the controller at 4 sites. However, at the
>other
>trials sites, to enable BT to get unhindered access to their equipment
>we
>identified certain cabinets that the LTU could be mounted in. Last week
>BT
>wrote back to me and stated "We can agree to a trial of LTU
>termination's
>within the Haldo Pillar if TFL agree to meet the cost of any LTU
>replacement
>associated with equipment faults which have been caused by the
>environmental
>conditions within the pillar."
>
>Now firstly, I do not think this is acceptable because we pay for a
>particular specification of line which BT know can only be maintained
>with
>and LTU. Also, I do not think it is wise to agree to such arrangement
>as it
>would set a precedent that they may later impose on other authorities.
>Therefore, I wrote back to BT asking them to provide details of any
>such
>agreements that they may have with other authorities in the country. I
>also
>sent them examples of photos of different types of existing
>installations
>including that which London Buses use on bus-stops with Countdown. I
>am
>still awaiting an answer from BT.
>
>To this extent can someone please advise if they already have an
>agreement
>with BT to pay for the failure of the LTU/NTU due the environment that
>it is
>mounted in?
>
>It should also be noted that an LTU is a passive device that is only
>activated when BT need to carry out the line test remotely, using
>their
>RATES system. So it does not help deliver the line quality in normal
>use.
>
>2. During the lining-up phase of the delivery, BT require access to
>their
>equipment, which if it is mounted inside the controller also requires
>attendance by our engineers at the same time. We recently had LTUs
>installed
>at four TCAM OTU sites and of this four, the last one that was lined-up
>on 1
>August 2003, failed to worked properly for a period longer than 2 days
>or
>so. We reported the fault 3 times in 30 days and after over two months
>it is
>still outstanding to be cleared. When I read the details of the kind
>of
>things that BT logged on their database about the faults on this line
>(from
>leg disconnected, cable breakdown, wires not soldered, transformer not
>strapped correctly and to cap it all - failure of the RATEs system) it
>makes
>me wonder how BT keep their Network running! In my opinion BT's leased
>line
>system in London is hideously fragile and could be the same in other
>major
>cities.
>
>3. Since last Monday (20/10/03) four of the ten TCAM sites have
>experienced
>huge numbers of UTC errors. We immediately tested the line at one site
>which
>had an LTU fitted for EPS25 delivery using the Auto Tims III line
>tester
>that we are currently evaluating and found that while the line
>frequency/loss characteristics are OK the equipment detected
>unacceptable
>level of impulse hits (noise in layman's terms). Now, in my opinion
>most BT
>engineers are good at picking up obvious faults such as line
>disconnected,
>high loss etc., but not so good at dealing with certain obscure faults
>that
>normal users also are not able to understand or measure unless they
>have the
>right test equipment and also know how to use it. Such faults can
>wreak
>havoc on high speed communications over lease line - as we have seen on
>TCAM
>trials!
>
>Also, one of the classic responses that we get back from BT is 'Right
>When
>Tested'. (sounds like a NFF from our signals maintenance engineers).
>How
>does the normal user challenge this?
>
>With regard to this last problem - we understand that it is centred
>around
>an exchange (whether true or not it seems that they have had some
>local
>flooding problem).
>
>I sincerely hope that these issues can be resolved with BT.
>
>Jag Morar
>Product Development
>Transport for London - SM/NetworkTechnology
>Tel. 020 7343 5354
>Email: jagmorar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Purdie, Hamilton [mailto:Hamilton.Purdie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 21 October 2003 11:57
>To: TCUG (E-mail)
>Subject: [TCUG] Problems with BT Circuits
>
>
>Following our recent TCUG Meeting last week I agreed to formulate a
>respons=
>e to DfT with respect to BT's poor performance with regard to
>Communication=
>s Circuits for UTC. They will then assist to escalate this nationally
>based=
> on our joint experiences.
>
>Could you please supply any feedback on your BT Analogue Circuits
>(mainly t=
>he Multipoint Service) particularly in the following areas:
>
>1) Difficulty in procuring additional Multipoint Circuits- either
>through l=
>ack of branching panel equipment at exchanges or lack of expertise in
>the c=
>onfiguration of the Multipoint Analogue service;
>
>2) Inability to maintain a correct level of service due to the use of
>non "=
>ruggedised" Line Terminating Units (LTU's) within unheated cabinets
>supplie=
>d by BT;
>
>3) Inability to provide the Multipoint Service within BT Specification
>poss=
>ibly due to lack of training/ experience on Multipoint, or problems
>with el=
>derly Branching Panel equipment at BT Exchanges.
>
>I look forward to receiving your responses.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Hamilton Purdie
>
>Assistant Principal Engineer
>CITRAC/ NADICS
>Land Services
>Glasgow City Council
>Tel 0141-287-9307
>Fax 0141-287-9288
>=20
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer:
>This message is intended only for use of the addressee. If this
>message
>was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this
>message.
>Glasgow City Council cannot accept responsibility for viruses, so
>please
>scan attachments. Views expressed in this message do not necessarily
>reflect
>those of the Council who will not necessarily be bound by its
>contents.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
>the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
>*************************************************************************
>
>The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential
>and
>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>are
>addressed. Transport for London Street Management hereby excludes any
>warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the
>contents of
>this e-mail and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the
>intended
>recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
>that
>any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail
>is
>strictly prohibited.
>
>If you have received this e-mail in error please notify
>postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
>the
>presence of computer viruses.
>*************************************************************************
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
>the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>The contents of this e-mail are confidential and intended solely for
>the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.
>Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author
>and do not necessarily represent those of the Council.
>If you are not the intended recipient (nor the person responsible for
>delivering to that recipient) be advised that you have received this
>e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
>or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
>If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Council's
>IT Customer Service Centre by telephone on +44 (0)1925 442200,
>or by e-mail to postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>This footnote confirms that the contents of this e-mail message have
>been scanned for the presence of computer viruses by
>MIMEsweeper/McAfee
>**********************************************************************
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
>the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
>the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Sunil Budhdeo
Traffic Signals Operations Manager
Tel: 0115 9419884
Mob:07803199090
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
