On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:22:53 +0100, Clive
wrote:

Trains very a lot between themselves and also between empty and loaded,
have you never seen a train over run a platform? Trainstops are there
for your safety not someone's convenience

So do busses. Maybe there should be a trip at each bus stop in case
the driver forgets a full bus needs more braking than an empty one?

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:22:53 +0100, Clive
wrote:

Trains very a lot between themselves and also between empty and
loaded, have you never seen a train over run a platform?
Trainstops are there for your safety not someone's convenience

So do busses. Maybe there should be a trip at each bus stop in case
the driver forgets a full bus needs more braking than an empty one?

If there was an organisation for the roads similar to the Railway
Inspectorate then it's entirely possible that there would be a better safety
regime.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:26:09 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

So do busses. Maybe there should be a trip at each bus stop in case
the driver forgets a full bus needs more braking than an empty one?

To add to Brimstone's comments, in some cases the worst thing you
could do with a road vehicle is to jam all the brakes on. That could
lead to loss of control or another collision. That's probably one
reason why road vehicles don't tend[1] to have emergency braking of
that type, as I'm certain the technology exists to implement it.

Of course, as he posted, if there was a Roads Inspectorate with the
same type of powers, road vehicles would probably be banned

[1] I'm told by Conor on uk.t (or uk.rec.driving, one or t'other) that
lorries do have that capability if there is a disconnect between the
brakes of the trailer and tractor unit. This is probably fair enough,
as braking is probably better than no braking capability whatsoever,
but it isn't necessarily the case that the best way to deal with a
road "SPAD" is to emergency brake - sometimes accelerating out of the
problem is safer.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

So do busses. Maybe there should be a trip at each bus stop in case
the driver forgets a full bus needs more braking than an empty one?

Sadly that does appear to be the case! Passengers regularly get thrown
about by some of the drivers on the No. 63 route as they regularly fail
to notice the subtle differences between nearly empty and fully loaded.

The newer buses are worse, as I presume they've got more power and
better brakes. But, I'd have thought the drivers (and you see the same
faces day in day out) would have compensated for this.

Is it easy to become a driver these days? Six years ago a friend tried
to become a driver at Wood Green, and he seemed to be the ideal
candidate, but he failed the test. I wonder if he would have still done
so today?

Jonathan

In article .com,
() wrote:


Clive wrote:
In message .com,
Boltar writes
Something no one in the media or on here seems to have mentioned is
that the only reason the drivers are noticing so many tripcock
failures
is that so many of these overpaid agitators are going through red
lights! Perhaps while they're fixing the trains they should consider
getting the drivers retrained. How exactly can you miss a red light
in
a slow tube train usually (on the northern line) in a dark tunnel?
They
don't have to worry about other traffic , roadside distractions,
steering etc like a bus driver but if a bus driver went through a red
light I don't think anyone would have much time for him blaming the
bus
for not putting its brakes on!
Perhaps if you tried driving a tube train instead of pontificating
like
Conor, you'd be wiser, and have no need to say anything.
--
Clive
He seems to have made a perfectly valid comment that requires an
answer, I would certainly like to know the answer. On the one hand you
have these highly trained, safety critical £32000pa or is it £35000pa
drivers, who should be capable of stopping a train at a signal. Or are
they irresponsible idiots who require a safety device to stop them at a
signal so that they can concentrate on their ipod.
Surely the purpose of the tripcock wasn't as a safety device just to
save the embarrassment of negligent drivers.
Kevin




The "going through red lights bit" is all ******** that the media have
been spreading - I read it on the BBC website yesterday.

The initial failure was after a train deliberately passed a red signal
when applying the rule due to signal failure. Subsequent failures were
noticed when the trains passed a fixed trainstop and didn't get tripped.

The fixed trainstops were specially fitted on the approach to all termini
so that trains got tripped at least once per trip as a means of tripping
the trains in an effort to check for any other failures (even the
defective ones were being tripped most of the times). Those at Edgware
High Barnet and Morden were removed after a few days, leaving the one in
place on the Mill Hill branch and the one in place in the Kennington loop.
The fifth one that failed was on the Mill Hill branch on Wednesday.


Roger

In message ,
writes
Clive wrote:
In message .com,
Boltar writes
Something no one in the media or on here seems to have mentioned is
that the only reason the drivers are noticing so many tripcock
failures
is that so many of these overpaid agitators are going through red
lights! Perhaps while they're fixing the trains they should consider
getting the drivers retrained. How exactly can you miss a red light
in
a slow tube train usually (on the northern line) in a dark tunnel?
They
don't have to worry about other traffic , roadside distractions,
steering etc like a bus driver but if a bus driver went through a red
light I don't think anyone would have much time for him blaming the
bus
for not putting its brakes on!
Perhaps if you tried driving a tube train instead of pontificating
like
Conor, you'd be wiser, and have no need to say anything.
--
Clive
He seems to have made a perfectly valid comment that requires an
answer, I would certainly like to know the answer. On the one hand you
have these highly trained, safety critical £32000pa or is it £35000pa
drivers, who should be capable of stopping a train at a signal. Or are
they irresponsible idiots who require a safety device to stop them at a
signal so that they can concentrate on their ipod.
Surely the purpose of the tripcock wasn't as a safety device just to
save the embarrassment of negligent drivers.
Kevin


Clive didn't write any of the forgoing. As a former driver on the
tube, these men/women have my sympathy for the knowledge and accuracy
with which trains on the tube are driven and it bortlicks or conorubish
tried it, they'd find it a lot more demanding than driving an oversize
car called a truck with forward control which makes it easier than a car
to handle.
--
Clive

Boltar wrote:
Something no one in the media or on here seems to have mentioned is
that the only reason the drivers are noticing so many tripcock
failures is that so many of these overpaid agitators are going
through red lights! Perhaps while they're fixing the trains they should
consider getting the drivers retrained. How exactly can you miss a red
light in a slow tube train usually (on the northern line) in a dark
tunnel?
They don't have to worry about other traffic , roadside distractions,
steering etc like a bus driver but if a bus driver went through a red
light
I don't think anyone would have much time for him blaming the bus for
not putting its brakes on!

B2003

Woh go there Boltar, I'm an Agitator, you'll be the first against the
wall when the revolution comes, we'll keep the red flag flying here........

And what if the red light on a signal fails? (Both filiments for those
in the know). In a dark tunnel where the signal head may be next to
invisible, those 'superfluous' trainstop/tripcock devices might be the
only thing between passengers and a second "Paddington/Ladbroke Grove".

You can always tell who the ignorant dicks are, on discussions about
railway operations, because they call signals showing a danger aspect
"red lights", as if they are traffic lights. Do they think trains weigh
1 to 40 tons and have rubber tyres rolling on asphalt?

In message . com,
writes

You can always tell who the ignorant dicks are, on discussions about
railway operations, because they call signals showing a danger aspect
"red lights", as if they are traffic lights. Do they think trains weigh
1 to 40 tons and have rubber tyres rolling on asphalt?

Although heavier than 40 tonnes some trains do run on rubber tyres on
concrete in at least parts of France and Canada.
--
Clive