Skip to main content

Don't knock our queues

Photo courtesy of Eva Amsen
I was somewhat bemused by a thought piece by James O'Malley suggesting that we've got it all wrong with our pride in Britain's ability to put on a good queue, as exemplified by the queue for the late Queen's lying in state.

O'Malley tells us 'It’s also a completely bonkers, wrong-headed way to think about Britain. When we see a queue, we should feel embarrassed.' The reason for this, he suggests, is that a queue means that we aren't being dealt with efficiently - our precious time is being wasted. He goes on to say 'when we see a queue we should want to celebrate it - we should want to eliminate it.'

As someone who worked in Operational Research, and who has done quite a lot of work with queuing theory, I would respectfully suggest that he is wrong. Not in the suggestion that we should want to minimise queuing - of course no one wants to waste their time. But outside of a fantasy world we have to consider the reality that lay behind Macmillan's response to being ask what the greatest challenges faced by statesmen were: 'Events, dear boy, events.'

There were always be circumstances where resources are limited compared to demand - and in such circumstances, the queue in its multiple guises is often the fairest way to deal with the situation. The British pride in its queue forming is not in the need for the queue, but rather dealing with circumstances where there is that resource/demand imbalance in a good tempered and orderly way.

It's absolutely true that we should engineer queues out of existence if possible. I recently sang the praises of Marks and Spencer's new system where I can scan things, put them straight into my shopping bag and pay on my phone as I walk towards the door without ever going near a till. That's a queue successfully deleted. But you can't always do that engineering. In some circumstances this is because it takes time to engineer solutions and we may need the queue now. In others, the cost of the resources to remove the queue is greater than the cost of the queuing time. 

That's not to say that O'Malley is wrong in saying that virtual queues such as booking systems have a lot of value - but it's naive to suggest that one could have been set up for the scale and nature of queue required in the Queen's lying in state. O'Malley suggests we could have modified the Covid jab booking system. But this would have involved attempting to apply a massively multiple queue, multiple server system to a single queue, dual server physical reality. The only way a booking system would have significantly changed things is if it was used to drastically reduce the number of people who could attend, which isn't really helping.

So, accepting there are circumstances where queues are needed, I think it's perfectly acceptable to be proud of a culture where, when they are required, they form naturally and easily, rather than in some countries, where any pretence of queuing rapidly collapses into a free-for-all. I was particularly impressed a few years ago when I went to a row of three cashpoints with a good few people waiting. I'm not sure how O'Malley would envisage dealing with this kind of queue. Putting at least ten cashpoints in each location, most of which would spend all their time idle? Making people book ahead to withdraw cash? But the queuers were a beautiful sight to see. Instead of forming separate queues behind each cashpoint, with no guidance they formed a single queue, multiple server formation, providing the fairest division of waiting time. I was truly proud of them.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope