Walk sequencing machines

[POSTMAN]

So why have these trials been going on for so long,how long does it take to do.

[Unleash Hell]

The Solystic CSS machines are destined for DOs country-wide, while NPs are primarily MC machines and have insufficient spare capacity to run O/W, I/W, walk sort AND walk sequencing.

RM didn't pay for the CSSs to be "developed" either, as they are an essentially off-the-shelf machine.

If the NP4000 has insufficient spare capacity and is a MC machine, then how would you expect anything bigger to fit in to a DO? The NP4000 can have additional boxes added btw....

[Unleash Hell]

Hmm, let me think back now......


Passing postie, "that E40 will never work, it's blah blah blah and the blah blah blah...."

Then, "that OCR V3 will never work, it's blah blah blah, and the blah blah blah....."

Or later, "that CFC will never work it's blah blah ......snore"

Later still, "Those NP4000s are useless, 'cos they're blah .........."

Surprisingly original, "that OCR/VCS will never work, 'cos my mate......."

Then back to "that A1 system, I've heard that it's never work 'cos....yawn"

{All still used, and all still purring away processing mail}

And now, entirely predictably, we have the dire warnings about Walk Sequencers from the Great Unwashed.

Which just goes to show canteen experts are always with us, and as always, those who actually know the least have the most to say.

One thing is certain. The new TOP2000 FSM is a pathetic excuse for a machine. It has poor components, poor structure and substandard software. Yes some may say it cost a fortune, but all I can say to that is Solystic saw RM coming or else someone in the company got a nice little Gite out of it in frogs ville. Unless its dramatically overhauled and re worked, this piece of s**t won't last 5 years.

[Tman]

If the NP4000 has insufficient spare capacity and is a MC machine, then how would you expect anything bigger to fit in to a DO? The NP4000 can have additional boxes added btw....

NPs run all the general O/W and I/W plans etc in an MC, and are running most, if not all, day long.
"Spare capacity" referred to the machine time needed to run walk sequencing in addition to all the usual plans, nothing to do with the physical size of the machine itself.

Nice idea about the "additional boxes" ( extra SBMs in reality) but unfortunately there's been none available for years now.............

[SpacePhoenix]

We had extra pods (1 per machine) added to our LSMs a couple of years ago. With regard to the FSMs I often see small packets (mainly jiffy bags) that have been through a FSM as they have the bar code sticker stuck to them. I don't know why they bother running letters (of the sort of size that would go through an LSM or MTT) through as LSMs and MTTs can't read the FSM bar codes (which half the time seem to get placed right over the address).

Our MC is apparently due to get iLSMs next year, depending on the number we get (will the iLSMs both our MTTs and LSMs or just the LSMs?) if it reduces our mech capacity then the walk sequencing could well have to be part done by our early shift.

[BELIAL]

If the NP4000 has insufficient spare capacity and is a MC machine, then how would you expect anything bigger to fit in to a DO? The NP4000 can have additional boxes added btw....

NPs run all the general O/W and I/W plans etc in an MC, and are running most, if not all, day long.
"Spare capacity" referred to the machine time needed to run walk sequencing in addition to all the usual plans, nothing to do with the physical size of the machine itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong But haven't you been banging on for two years about how much your letter volumes have dropped ,and the resulting down time and idling cannot be economically justified.
All of a sudden your systems are chocca and have no spare capacity.
There seems to be a contradiction there, but I'm sure you can explain it

[Tman]

Correct me if I'm wrong But haven't you been banging on for two years about how much your letter volumes have dropped ,and the resulting down time and idling cannot be economically justified.
All of a sudden your systems are chocca and have no spare capacity.
There seems to be a contradiction there, but I'm sure you can explain it

After this post of yours-


Funny that the NP's lack capacity given plummeting letter volumes
Looks like the Solystic's are proving to be a bit of a pig in a poke. Somebody has their head in a noose over this innovation ,hence the headless chicken cost cutting drive.
Massive set up costs and minimal savings. Purchase, floor space,juice, maintenance,operators ,conveyance all for 5-7 mins saving prep per walk Big boob
3 -4 runs to get satisfactory sequencing for each walk ,not do able in the ? seconds break even time. Someone got sold a pup Heads will roll eventually

I wouldn't have thought I would have to explain anything to a person who clearly has in-depth and insider knowlege of CSSs etc and how RM integrates them into the mail process, but there you go.....

Probably the misapprehension you're under is thinking that an MC could suddenly rerun all it's I/W mails two-three times in addition to the existing workplans on existing machinery. Basically an extra shift's work fitted in.
Some apparently could, as long as the DO blokes didn't mind starting deliveries after mid-day or even later, but others have no spare running time at all,thanks mostly to RM's rationalisation programme.Ask Hubba-hubba.
Problem is, capacity mail here---not enough mail there could mean moving mail around to where it could be processed. That's not an option with walk-sequencing, unless there's an undiscovered way of Romford (say) processing the walks for some little DO on Ilkley Moor.

So no "contradiction" at all, if you understand how MCs etc operate.

[hubbahubba]

We had extra pods (1 per machine) added to our LSMs a couple of years ago. With regard to the FSMs I often see small packets (mainly jiffy bags) that have been through a FSM as they have the bar code sticker stuck to them. I don't know why they bother running letters (of the sort of size that would go through an LSM or MTT) through as LSMs and MTTs can't read the FSM bar codes (which half the time seem to get placed right over the address).

Our MC is apparently due to get iLSMs next year, depending on the number we get (will the iLSMs both our MTTs and LSMs or just the LSMs?) if it reduces our mech capacity then the walk sequencing could well have to be part done by our early shift.

we are getting 5 more css machines,to go with the 3 we alreadly have,and will lose all 4 lsm's,maybe even get another imp.The reason being,that we will be moving to a "single pass"outward run,so will not(in theory!)need the lsm for outward sortation.The css's will be used to run all our surrounding DO's sequence mail.

[axeman]

If the NP4000 has insufficient spare capacity and is a MC machine, then how would you expect anything bigger to fit in to a DO? The NP4000 can have additional boxes added btw....

NPs run all the general O/W and I/W plans etc in an MC, and are running most, if not all, day long.
"Spare capacity" referred to the machine time needed to run walk sequencing in addition to all the usual plans, nothing to do with the physical size of the machine itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong But haven't you been banging on for two years about how much your letter volumes have dropped ,and the resulting down time and idling cannot be economically justified.
All of a sudden your systems are chocca and have no spare capacity.
There seems to be a contradiction there, but I'm sure you can explain it

tman will have the answer but we know from experience that it will be true to now departed big al's most famous words bulls*it a contradiction of gigantic proportions eh tman.....................................yes the mails down