"Basil Jet" wrote in message news
On 2017\04\08 13:41, michael adams wrote:

Whereas in fact drivers should never find themselves in the position
where they're having to refuse take out trains as a direct result of slipshod
maintenance. As its their neck which will be on the line if anything goes
wrong.

That sounds like you're suggesting they'll be fired or disciplined if a fault develops,

The finger will point at them until such time as the evidence indicates
otherwise. Which might take days or weeks.

The general public without the requisite technical knowledge are probably
more likely as first at least to attribute any such occurance to operator
or driver error. As that's something everyone can understand,
Wereas the systems they're operating are supposedly designed
not to fail.

Same as with these wheel flats. As a member of the travelling public I've not a
got a clue whether there are any safety implications in driving with wheel flats.
Again I can't really believe that drivers weren't reporting this problem,
before all of a sudden it became necessary for drivers to actually refuse to
take out trains and for the decision to be made to take large numbers
of trains out of service .

There's plenty in the news about drivers being disciplined or dismissed
for various offences. I've yet to read anywhere of a single member
of the LT management or Board (if such still exists) being dismissed
as a result of their decision to cut back on wheel maintainence and
inspections on the Picaddilly Line.

when it's more that they will have a really horrific day
if a door opens unexpectedly and a few people fall off a moving tube train.

How many people other than his fellow drivers will accept that the
door opened "unexpectedly" for any other reason than that the
driver somehow opened it himself by accident ?


michael adams

...

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:46:03 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message news
On 2017\04\08 13:41, michael adams wrote:

Whereas in fact drivers should never find themselves in the position
where they're having to refuse take out trains as a direct result of slipshod
maintenance. As its their neck which will be on the line if anything goes
wrong.

That sounds like you're suggesting they'll be fired or disciplined if a fault develops,

The finger will point at them until such time as the evidence indicates
otherwise. Which might take days or weeks.

The general public without the requisite technical knowledge are probably
more likely as first at least to attribute any such occurance to operator
or driver error. As that's something everyone can understand,
Wereas the systems they're operating are supposedly designed
not to fail.

Same as with these wheel flats. As a member of the travelling public I've not a
got a clue whether there are any safety implications in driving with wheel flats.
Again I can't really believe that drivers weren't reporting this problem,
before all of a sudden it became necessary for drivers to actually refuse to
take out trains and for the decision to be made to take large numbers
of trains out of service .

Drivers would certainly report wheel flats if they became aware of
them, but a flat somewhere in the middle of the train may not be
audible in the cab. So a member of station staff or even a passenger
may report a bad one. That's a fault that is easy to check, and it's
part of the driver's job if s/he becomes aware of one.

If it's a bad flat, the train will be withdrawn from service. The
problem arises with rare, intermittent faults that are hard to
reproduce (such as the doors that allegedly opened spontaneously
between stations).


There's plenty in the news about drivers being disciplined or dismissed
for various offences. I've yet to read anywhere of a single member
of the LT management or Board (if such still exists) being dismissed
as a result of their decision to cut back on wheel maintainence and
inspections on the Picaddilly Line.

That wasn't what caused the wheel flats. There hadn't been any
cutbacks on wheel maintenance or inspections.


when it's more that they will have a really horrific day
if a door opens unexpectedly and a few people fall off a moving tube train.

How many people other than his fellow drivers will accept that the
door opened "unexpectedly" for any other reason than that the
driver somehow opened it himself by accident ?

There's no way a driver could open a single passenger door while the
train was on the move, so no-one would blame him if it happened. The
question was whether the reports of such door openings were spurious.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:46:03 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
news

when it's more that they will have a really horrific day
if a door opens unexpectedly and a few people fall off a moving tube train.

How many people other than his fellow drivers will accept that the
door opened "unexpectedly" for any other reason than that the
driver somehow opened it himself by accident ?

There's no way a driver could open a single passenger door while the
train was on the move, so no-one would blame him if it happened.

You may well know that, and his fellow drivers may well know that,
but do the general public ? If B J's example is allowed as a real
possibility, is it realistic to suppose that LU would immediately
own up to real possibility that their trains are at fault, without
first holding some sort of internal enquiry ?

The question was whether the reports of such door openings were
spurious.

Apparently there were five such reports, the latest Jan 16th one
at least involving a light in the cab indicating a door was open.
Quite where the spurious element comes in, drivers suffering from
hallucinations, deliberately lying, or faulty indicator lights
in the cabs I'm not sure. I rather wish B J hadn't raised this as
an example as now I'm rather intrigued to know how this issue
was resolved. If at all.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:46:03 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
news

when it's more that they will have a really horrific day
if a door opens unexpectedly and a few people fall off a moving tube train.

How many people other than his fellow drivers will accept that the
door opened "unexpectedly" for any other reason than that the
driver somehow opened it himself by accident ?

There's no way a driver could open a single passenger door while the
train was on the move, so no-one would blame him if it happened.

You may well know that, and his fellow drivers may well know that,
but do the general public ? If B J's example is allowed as a real
possibility, is it realistic to suppose that LU would immediately
own up to real possibility that their trains are at fault, without
first holding some sort of internal enquiry ?

The question was whether the reports of such door openings were
spurious.

Apparently there were five such reports, the latest Jan 16th one
at least involving a light in the cab indicating a door was open.
Quite where the spurious element comes in, drivers suffering from
hallucinations, deliberately lying, or faulty indicator lights
in the cabs I'm not sure. I rather wish B J hadn't raised this as
an example as now I'm rather intrigued to know how this issue
was resolved. If at all.

Have you actually looked at the video this one?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35337580

The door opens just as the train comes to a stop, which is perfectly normal
on that line -- the drivers normally do open the doors before the train
comes to a complete stop, which is fine. But the report says this happened
as the train approached Heathrow terminal 4, and that's certainly not where
that passenger video was shot (for one thing, the doors open on the right
at T4). So I'm guessing that the BBC just used a random clip showing
perfectly normal door operation and thought this was the fault that had
been reported.

The actual door problem appears to have been acknowledged, investigated and
fixed. It was apparently a fault in a single door engine, and no-one blamed
the driver. But the union still used it as an excuse for industrial
action.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Apparently there were five such reports, the latest Jan 16th one
at least involving a light in the cab indicating a door was open.
Quite where the spurious element comes in, drivers suffering from
hallucinations, deliberately lying, or faulty indicator lights
in the cabs I'm not sure. I rather wish B J hadn't raised this as
an example as now I'm rather intrigued to know how this issue
was resolved. If at all.

Have you actually looked at the video this one?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35337580

What exactly would have been the point of my having watched a video
which you yourself along with others suspect is simply a random
clip used by the BBC showing normal door operation ?


michael adams

....

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

You may well know that, and his fellow drivers may well know that,
but do the general public ? If B J's example is allowed as a real
possibility, is it realistic to suppose that LU would immediately
own up to real possibility that their trains are at fault, without
first holding some sort of internal enquiry ?

The question was whether the reports of such door openings were
spurious.

The actual door problem appears to have been acknowledged, investigated and
fixed. It was apparently a fault in a single door engine, and no-one blamed
the driver.

To repeat "The question was whether the reports of such door openings were
spurious".

In other words, when supposedly trusted employees of LT, trusted sufficiently
to be able to drive trains at least., report a problem with doors, "a question"
immediately arises as to whether they're simply telling lies or not.

And then it turns out that "apparently" the drivers weren't telling lies or making
things up after all.

That's what you're saying in effect, is it not ?

But the union still used it as an excuse for industrial
action.

The union didn't use it as an "excuse" for anything. Although possibly they were
justifiably disappointed that the first recourse of LT management
whenever drivers report a problem who's effects aren't manifestly
apparent, is to suggest that the drivers are lying or making things up.

Although as I've already said, and in answer to your diatribe in your other post
the problem is not that the drivers are always in the right and the management
always in the wrong, but even in those cases where they are in the right they're
inadequately represented such that their point is not put across. If they
employed PR smoothies to represent them in the media as do LU -
then possibly they'd come over better.

As to management and the board. My 3rd most frequently used line is the
Central Line. For the new stock some genius presumably persuaded numerous
committees and boards that it would be a nice idea to have wrap around
windows up to the ceiling to allow the punters to better view the Essex
countryside. Unfortunately it was only after the new stock came on stream
that it was realised that in the absence of air-conditioning the insides of the
car became unbearably hot in sunny weather. Like little greenhouses
in fact. Now who'd have thought ? So that as result all the windows ended up
tinted. Which while maybe looking stylish to types attracted to that sort of thing
had the unfortunate result that passengers standing outside on the platform are
unable to see inside and which carriages are full and which are empty.
One possible solution might be to blank out the additional window area with
opaque film do reducing it to what it was before. However that's unlikely to
happen as it would be a living testament to the monumental
cock-up that was seemingly perpetrated at all levels of LT management.
Instead Central Line passengers are going to have to suffer a situation
where they can't see inside a train before boarding for the next, what
40 years ?

Oh and having done a bit of reading up. Apparently owing to the
brake thing plus the leaves on the Uxbridge line trains on the Piccadilly Line
are the most susceptible to flats. Which is why it was such a great idea
to put the only truing lathe in the maintenance pit at Northfelds depot
where its use would preclude other maintenance functions.

Although of course unlike the stroppy drivers who are all to real to some people
this stuff is only "rumours" appearing on blogs etc rather than LU hand-outs


michael adams

...

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:07:57 +0100
"michael adams" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
But the union still used it as an excuse for industrial
action.

The union didn't use it as an "excuse" for anything. Although possibly they
were
justifiably disappointed that the first recourse of LT management
whenever drivers report a problem who's effects aren't manifestly
apparent, is to suggest that the drivers are lying or making things up.

Perhaps if the drivers didn't cry wolf so often people might actually believe
them occasionally. Sadly those bridges burned and collapsed long ago. They only
have themselves to blame for the publics complete cynicism with anything they
have to say which of course emboldens management. It would seem the unions
and their members are too dim to see the long term consequences of calling
strikes for fatuous reasons. But then I suppose if you're fairly smart you
don't drive a train for a living.

--
Spud

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:07:57 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...

You may well know that, and his fellow drivers may well know that,
but do the general public ? If B J's example is allowed as a real
possibility, is it realistic to suppose that LU would immediately
own up to real possibility that their trains are at fault, without
first holding some sort of internal enquiry ?

The question was whether the reports of such door openings were
spurious.

The actual door problem appears to have been acknowledged, investigated and
fixed. It was apparently a fault in a single door engine, and no-one blamed
the driver.

To repeat "The question was whether the reports of such door openings were
spurious".

In other words, when supposedly trusted employees of LT, trusted sufficiently
to be able to drive trains at least., report a problem with doors, "a question"
immediately arises as to whether they're simply telling lies or not.

And then it turns out that "apparently" the drivers weren't telling lies or making
things up after all.

That's what you're saying in effect, is it not ?

But the union still used it as an excuse for industrial
action.

The union didn't use it as an "excuse" for anything. Although possibly they were
justifiably disappointed that the first recourse of LT management
whenever drivers report a problem who's effects aren't manifestly
apparent, is to suggest that the drivers are lying or making things up.

Although as I've already said, and in answer to your diatribe in your other post
the problem is not that the drivers are always in the right and the management
always in the wrong, but even in those cases where they are in the right they're
inadequately represented such that their point is not put across. If they
employed PR smoothies to represent them in the media as do LU -
then possibly they'd come over better.

As to management and the board. My 3rd most frequently used line is the
Central Line. For the new stock some genius presumably persuaded numerous
committees and boards that it would be a nice idea to have wrap around
windows up to the ceiling to allow the punters to better view the Essex
countryside.

I assume you're new to London? Otherwise, you might remember the
extensive public testing of three different prototype trains before
the current Central Line trains were ordered. The trains that were
ordered were based on the most popular of the new designs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London...und_1986_Stock

As for them being "new", I'm sure the LU management will be pleased
that one of its most severe, if uninformed, critics regards 25
year-old trains as "new". Perhaps you've also not noticed that the
three subsequent deep tube stock designs haven't had the wrap-over
windows you so hate.

Unfortunately it was only after the new stock came on stream
that it was realised that in the absence of air-conditioning the insides of the
car became unbearably hot in sunny weather. Like little greenhouses
in fact. Now who'd have thought ? So that as result all the windows ended up
tinted. Which while maybe looking stylish to types attracted to that sort of thing
had the unfortunate result that passengers standing outside on the platform are
unable to see inside and which carriages are full and which are empty.
One possible solution might be to blank out the additional window area with
opaque film do reducing it to what it was before. However that's unlikely to
happen as it would be a living testament to the monumental
cock-up that was seemingly perpetrated at all levels of LT management.
Instead Central Line passengers are going to have to suffer a situation
where they can't see inside a train before boarding for the next, what
40 years ?

You may hate LU management, but even they don't try and keep trains in
service for 65 years. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the likely
designs for the replacement stock?


Oh and having done a bit of reading up. Apparently owing to the
brake thing plus the leaves on the Uxbridge line trains on the Piccadilly Line
are the most susceptible to flats.

Yes, I'm glad you've read the document I linked to.


Which is why it was such a great idea
to put the only truing lathe in the maintenance pit at Northfelds depot
where its use would preclude other maintenance functions.

As you're such an expert, where would you have placed the wheel lathe?


Although of course unlike the stroppy drivers who are all to real to some people
this stuff is only "rumours" appearing on blogs etc rather than LU hand-outs

Unfortunately, the rail unions have acquired a bad reputation for
lying, so the default assumption now is that anything they say is
unlikely to be true.

In article ,
(michael adams) wrote:

As to management and the board. My 3rd most frequently used line is the
Central Line. For the new stock some genius presumably persuaded numerous
committees and boards that it would be a nice idea to have wrap around
windows up to the ceiling to allow the punters to better view the Essex
countryside. Unfortunately it was only after the new stock came on stream
that it was realised that in the absence of air-conditioning the insides
of the car became unbearably hot in sunny weather. Like little greenhouses
in fact. Now who'd have thought ? So that as result all the windows ended
up tinted. Which while maybe looking stylish to types attracted to that
sort of thing had the unfortunate result that passengers standing outside
on the platform are unable to see inside and which carriages are full and
which are empty. One possible solution might be to blank out the
additional window area with opaque film do reducing it to what it was
before. However that's unlikely to happen as it would be a living
testament to the monumental cock-up that was seemingly perpetrated at all
levels of LT management. Instead Central Line passengers are going to have
to suffer a situation where they can't see inside a train before boarding
for the next, what 40 years ?

Hey! Less of the ********, please! An advantage of windows going up into the
roof space is that passengers can see out at stations more easily and see
which station they are at. The original Victoria Line 1967 stock introduced
the idea after trials on a 1938 stock car after the War. I can see this is
less of an issue with modern passenger information systems which announce
each station but does the 1992 stock have such systems?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:00:44 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(michael adams) wrote:

As to management and the board. My 3rd most frequently used line is the
Central Line. For the new stock some genius presumably persuaded numerous
committees and boards that it would be a nice idea to have wrap around
windows up to the ceiling to allow the punters to better view the Essex
countryside. Unfortunately it was only after the new stock came on stream
that it was realised that in the absence of air-conditioning the insides
of the car became unbearably hot in sunny weather. Like little greenhouses
in fact. Now who'd have thought ? So that as result all the windows ended
up tinted. Which while maybe looking stylish to types attracted to that
sort of thing had the unfortunate result that passengers standing outside
on the platform are unable to see inside and which carriages are full and
which are empty. One possible solution might be to blank out the
additional window area with opaque film do reducing it to what it was
before. However that's unlikely to happen as it would be a living
testament to the monumental cock-up that was seemingly perpetrated at all
levels of LT management. Instead Central Line passengers are going to have
to suffer a situation where they can't see inside a train before boarding
for the next, what 40 years ?

Hey! Less of the ********, please! An advantage of windows going up into the
roof space is that passengers can see out at stations more easily and see
which station they are at. The original Victoria Line 1967 stock introduced
the idea after trials on a 1938 stock car after the War. I can see this is
less of an issue with modern passenger information systems which announce
each station but does the 1992 stock have such systems?

The current system is audio-only, but digital information displays are
apparently on the way.

http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOT...6:TEXT:EN:HTML

I suppose they're needed for compliance with the new 2020 PRM TSI
rules, though it seems like an unnecessary enhancement so late in the
life of the trains.