NY wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:34:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
It took me 4 days to learn to drive a bus - test on the 5th. And that
involves
having to actually steer the vehicle through narrow streets and around
parked
vehicles, not something train drivers have to worry about. So I reckon 2
or 3
days to learn to push a lever backwards and forwards and get a feel for
braking under different loads (no different to an HGV) and a few more
weeks for
for learning signals, basic trouble shooting and some routes. A month
tops.

What sort of vehicles had you driven before then? Were you already used to
driving anything larger than a standard Ford Cortina size of car?

The largest vehicle I've driven was a long wheelbase Mercedes Sprinter van
(from a van hire place when we were moving house), having only driven a car
until then. Reversing it onto our drive was nerve-wracking, even with the
aid of a reversing camera: I'm so used to having the view through the rear
window via a rear-view mirror, in addition to the door mirrors. Remembering
to drive slightly beyond a right-angle turn before starting to steer, so as
to avoid clipping the kerb with the back wheels, was something I *usually*
did right but occasionally misjudged.

By the third day it held no terrors for me, and I even managed to parallel
park it (obviously in a longer slot than for my car!) on the first go -
thank goodness for the passenger door mirror, angled downwards, to see when
the rear wheel is about to touch the kerb, so as to determine when to start
steering hard right to tuck the front end in.

Driving an ordinary car felt very weird afterwards - the steering wheel felt
so high up, when I'd got used to the elbows-resting-on-my-knees position for
steering the van.



But that is nowhere near as extreme as driving a bus which is wider still
and a lot longer. If you only had prior experience of driving a car, then
I'm impressed that you passed a bus test on day 5.

Neil also has an HGV licence — maybe he got that before driving the bus?

On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/23/john-mcdonnell-nasty-devious-figure-behind-scenes-kate-hoey/

On 24/11/2019 08:39, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�


He was always the one pulling the strings. He might not remain shadow
chancellor, though I wouldn't bet on it. He can always reluctantly agree
to remain in post just to oversea the leadership changes and then allow
the new leader to keep him on.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/11/2019 08:39, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�


He was always the one pulling the strings. He might not remain shadow
chancellor, though I wouldn't bet on it. He can always reluctantly agree
to remain in post just to oversea the leadership changes and then allow
the new leader to keep him on.


Could be, but I think he might prefer not to have a formal shadow cabinet
role.

If the polls are even half-right, Labour is set for another miserably long
stint in opposition, and may only have around 200 seats in the Commons, so
being in the Shadow Cabinet won't count for much.

It could be that the long-forecast split between the centre-left moderates
and Momentum finally happens after the meltdown. McDonnell might be more
interested in fighting that war with the hated Blairites than with coming
up with economic policies that no-one cares about.

Corbyn is 70, and looks much older. He looks like he belongs in a
retirement home, not No 10. Mcdonnell is 68, and probably won't be fighting
the next election.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/11/election-2019-a-guide-to-what-the-polls-mean-and-what-they-dont

wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:50:07 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
So they run that 1 type of train. Better than no type of train in service.



30 units out of a fleet of 400 to cover the entirety of SWR *ROTFL*

So no trains at all is a better option is it? I suspect a lot of the
commuters might disagree.

Are they even cleared for routes other than the ones they currently operate
on? (No I can't be bothered to wade through

Who cares? They can operate on the routes they ARE cleared for. Whats the
problem?


SWR drivers are not trained on DOO, they don't have an agreement for DOO,
the stations haven't been risk assessed for DOO.

To sort all that out will take way longer than a month, and trying to force
a DOO agreement on the drivers may result in them deciding to strike too.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:46:17 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:18:51 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/11/2019 12:49, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:47:05 +0000
MikeS wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:36, wrote:

Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on strike for
a month soon I can't say it surprises me to find out they're a bunch of tits
as well.


Do keep up, it's the guards that are striking.

Will any of the drivers cross the picket line and run the trains OPO? I think
we know the answer to that.



SWR can't do DOO. They say they're planning to run 50% of services,
presumably using management/office staff as guards.

As for crossing or not crossing picket lines, I believe it's technically
secondary industrial action and therefore technically illegal,

Only if they have been encouraged by their union. AFAIR the individual
members making individual decisions are a very different legal matter.
It is further complicated by the later introduction of the Human
Rights Act.


Thanks for the clarification!


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:22:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
NY wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:34:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
It took me 4 days to learn to drive a bus - test on the 5th. And that
involves
having to actually steer the vehicle through narrow streets and around
parked
vehicles, not something train drivers have to worry about. So I reckon 2
or 3
days to learn to push a lever backwards and forwards and get a feel for
braking under different loads (no different to an HGV) and a few more
weeks for
for learning signals, basic trouble shooting and some routes. A month
tops.

What sort of vehicles had you driven before then? Were you already used to
driving anything larger than a standard Ford Cortina size of car?

The largest vehicle I've driven was a long wheelbase Mercedes Sprinter van
(from a van hire place when we were moving house), having only driven a car
until then. Reversing it onto our drive was nerve-wracking, even with the
aid of a reversing camera: I'm so used to having the view through the rear
window via a rear-view mirror, in addition to the door mirrors. Remembering
to drive slightly beyond a right-angle turn before starting to steer, so as
to avoid clipping the kerb with the back wheels, was something I *usually*
did right but occasionally misjudged.

By the third day it held no terrors for me, and I even managed to parallel
park it (obviously in a longer slot than for my car!) on the first go -
thank goodness for the passenger door mirror, angled downwards, to see when
the rear wheel is about to touch the kerb, so as to determine when to start
steering hard right to tuck the front end in.

Driving an ordinary car felt very weird afterwards - the steering wheel felt

so high up, when I'd got used to the elbows-resting-on-my-knees position for

steering the van.



But that is nowhere near as extreme as driving a bus which is wider still
and a lot longer. If you only had prior experience of driving a car, then
I'm impressed that you passed a bus test on day 5.

Neil also has an HGV licence — maybe he got that before driving the bus?

I did.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:30:15 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:34:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:46:17 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
When the air traffic controllers in the USA pushed their luck once too
often
and went out on strike for the umpteenth time in the 80s, Reagan fired the
lot
of then AND banned them for working for the federal government for a number

of
years yet planes kept flying. We should do the same with train staff - its
not exactly a hard job physically or mentally no matter what they pretend
and

they could be replaced pretty quickly. Certainly quicker than air traffic
controllers.


Several months to train a guard and 12-18 months to train a driver; over

It took me 4 days to learn to drive a bus - test on the 5th. And that involves

having to actually steer the vehicle through narrow streets and around parked
vehicles, not something train drivers have to worry about. So I reckon 2 or 3
days to learn to push a lever backwards and forwards and get a feel for
braking under different loads (no different to an HGV) and a few more weeks
for
for learning signals, basic trouble shooting and some routes. A month tops.
The other 17 months being required is no doubt down to antiquated union rules
that haven't changed since the victorian era.

No, it took you 4 days to learn how to steer a bus. It takes much
longer than that to learn how to drive any road vehicle due to the
different circumstances that can be experienced. Some people never
learn.

The test for a commercial vehicle is a LOT harder than a car. You don't get
away with many mistakes and the test enviroment is a lot more varied. Kev and
Trace might scrape through driving their corsa a bit erratically on a car test
but they'd be failed in minutes on an HGV or bus test.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:13:31 -0000
"NY" wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:34:10 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
It took me 4 days to learn to drive a bus - test on the 5th. And that
involves
having to actually steer the vehicle through narrow streets and around
parked
vehicles, not something train drivers have to worry about. So I reckon 2
or 3
days to learn to push a lever backwards and forwards and get a feel for
braking under different loads (no different to an HGV) and a few more
weeks for
for learning signals, basic trouble shooting and some routes. A month
tops.

What sort of vehicles had you driven before then? Were you already used to
driving anything larger than a standard Ford Cortina size of car?

Articulated HGV so I had a bit of a prior advantage.

Driving an ordinary car felt very weird afterwards - the steering wheel felt
so high up, when I'd got used to the elbows-resting-on-my-knees position for
steering the van.

Driving a lorry is like driving a large car for me. Driving a bus is wierd
however because you're about a meter in front of the steering wheels so you
have to leave turning movements later than feels normal.