London's mayor is offering public transport tips to Venezuela's
capital

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....ID=1&subID=746

Is it possible that Hugo Chavez one day entered a ragged central London
tube station, forked out three quid for a ticket, walked down the
stationary escalator, joined the throng waiting for a delayed train and
thought, "Hombre, we must have a bit of this"?

Old Boy wrote:
London's mayor is offering public transport tips to Venezuela's
capital

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....ID=1&subID=746

Is it possible that Hugo Chavez one day entered a ragged central London
tube station, forked out three quid for a ticket, walked down the
stationary escalator, joined the throng waiting for a delayed train and
thought, "Hombre, we must have a bit of this"?

It's one of those interesting reminders that, much as certain rags and
whiners like to relentlessly slate TfL, people worldwide whose job is
to actually understand these things realise that London's transport
system features a great many practices worth emulating (alongside the
areas where it could do better and could learn from other cities,
naturally).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:


It's one of those interesting reminders that, much as certain rags and
whiners like to relentlessly slate TfL, people worldwide whose job is
to actually understand these things realise that London's transport
system features a great many practices worth emulating (alongside the
areas where it could do better and could learn from other cities,
naturally).


I got on my first tube train in months this morning and we made it from
Euston to Kings X where the train came to an abrupt stop short of the
end of the platform. The then followed several minutes of staff running
up and down the platform with the doors shut. We are told we would have
to detrain and that there was a train right behind. A few more minutes
of nothing much happening then the doors shut then more nothing then
the train shunts back then stops then shunts back again. It then
proceeds forward but instead of going straight on stops and the doors
open. The entire platform full of people stare in amazement until one
brave person decides well the doors are open I'm getting on followed by
everybody else.
We then proceeded with the journey apart from the obligitory reopening
of the doors.
And after January I will have to pay £4 to experience this. Wonderful.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
John B wrote:


It's one of those interesting reminders that, much as certain rags and
whiners like to relentlessly slate TfL, people worldwide whose job is
to actually understand these things realise that London's transport
system features a great many practices worth emulating (alongside the
areas where it could do better and could learn from other cities,
naturally).


I got on my first tube train in months this morning and we made it from
Euston to Kings X where the train came to an abrupt stop short of the
end of the platform. The then followed several minutes of staff running
up and down the platform with the doors shut. We are told we would have
to detrain and that there was a train right behind. A few more minutes
of nothing much happening then the doors shut then more nothing then
the train shunts back then stops then shunts back again. It then
proceeds forward but instead of going straight on stops and the doors
open. The entire platform full of people stare in amazement until one
brave person decides well the doors are open I'm getting on followed by
everybody else.
We then proceeded with the journey apart from the obligitory reopening
of the doors.
And after January I will have to pay £4 to experience this. Wonderful.

Kevin

The only thing at which L.T. (or T.F.L. as it is now called) excels
seems to be providing llimp excuses for the joke that passes for
"service" nowadays.

This morning's painfully slow journey between Fulham Broadway and Earl'
Court at about 7.45a.m. must surely have broken the record.

Delays of several minutes at Fulham Broadway, repeated on the approach
to West Brompton. Then further minutes' delays on leaving West Brompton
and then on the approach to Earl's Court.

Here's a list of the excsues provided by the driver (in the order in
which they were announced):-

1. Engineering works at Earl's Court which meant a delaysed engineering
possession this morning.

2. Signalling problems at Earl's Court meant that trains were "passing
through Earl's Court, but very slowly".

3. A train ahead of us at Earl's Court had to be "reformed" (whatever
that means - the thought of shunting maneouvres at Earl's Court
intrigues me!).

4. The train ahead of us was in the platform at Earl's Court and was
awating a driver.

Do readers think this info (or misinfo) was being provided to the
driver by the Department for Lame Excuses or was he told "make it up as
you go along"?

Marc.

In message om,
" writes

This morning's painfully slow journey between Fulham Broadway and Earl'
Court at about 7.45a.m. must surely have broken the record.

Delays of several minutes at Fulham Broadway, repeated on the approach
to West Brompton. Then further minutes' delays on leaving West Brompton
and then on the approach to Earl's Court.

Here's a list of the excsues provided by the driver (in the order in
which they were announced):-

Which all sound quite plausible to me. As drivers we're expected to
pass as much information onto the customers as possible to reassure
them. We don't always receive an awful lot though.

1. Engineering works at Earl's Court which meant a delaysed engineering
possession this morning.

Often happens - more so these days since the management of the
maintenance passed to private companies under the PPP.

2. Signalling problems at Earl's Court meant that trains were "passing
through Earl's Court, but very slowly".

Which might or might not be related to the above. In any case,
'signalling problems' are so common (especially at EC) as to not cause
much reaction.

3. A train ahead of us at Earl's Court had to be "reformed" (whatever
that means - the thought of shunting maneouvres at Earl's Court
intrigues me!).

Ah, now.... jargon (which is frowned upon). What it means is that train
4 which was, maybe, going to Upminster has now been renamed to be called
train 12 which is going to Tower Hill and the driver who is booked to
drive train 12 needs to take it over. It's actually a very common
procedure on LU but is really of no concern to the customers.

4. The train ahead of us was in the platform at Earl's Court and was
awating a driver.

The aforementioned reform failed as the new driver was still having his
(late) meal relief and nobody (mainly the managers who should be
managing these things) realised?

Do readers think this info (or misinfo) was being provided to the
driver by the Department for Lame Excuses or was he told "make it up as
you go along"?

(As a driver!) I think the driver did his best to keep you all informed
with the limited information he had at his disposal. We're wrong if we
say nothing, and wrong if the information isn't 100% accurate, but we
can only pass on what we're told.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
...
In message om,
" writes

This morning's painfully slow journey between Fulham Broadway and Earl'
Court at about 7.45a.m. must surely have broken the record.

Delays of several minutes at Fulham Broadway, repeated on the approach
to West Brompton. Then further minutes' delays on leaving West Brompton
and then on the approach to Earl's Court.

Here's a list of the excsues provided by the driver (in the order in
which they were announced):-

Which all sound quite plausible to me. As drivers we're expected to pass
as much information onto the customers as possible to reassure them. We
don't always receive an awful lot though.

1. Engineering works at Earl's Court which meant a delaysed engineering
possession this morning.

Often happens - more so these days since the management of the maintenance
passed to private companies under the PPP.

2. Signalling problems at Earl's Court meant that trains were "passing
through Earl's Court, but very slowly".

Which might or might not be related to the above. In any case,
'signalling problems' are so common (especially at EC) as to not cause
much reaction.

3. A train ahead of us at Earl's Court had to be "reformed" (whatever
that means - the thought of shunting maneouvres at Earl's Court
intrigues me!).

Ah, now.... jargon (which is frowned upon). What it means is that train 4
which was, maybe, going to Upminster has now been renamed to be called
train 12 which is going to Tower Hill and the driver who is booked to
drive train 12 needs to take it over. It's actually a very common
procedure on LU but is really of no concern to the customers.

4. The train ahead of us was in the platform at Earl's Court and was
awating a driver.

The aforementioned reform failed as the new driver was still having his
(late) meal relief and nobody (mainly the managers who should be managing
these things) realised?

Do readers think this info (or misinfo) was being provided to the
driver by the Department for Lame Excuses or was he told "make it up as
you go along"?

(As a driver!) I think the driver did his best to keep you all informed
with the limited information he had at his disposal. We're wrong if we
say nothing, and wrong if the information isn't 100% accurate, but we can
only pass on what we're told.

Steve, I've told you before about telling the punters the truth. In future
give 'em the mushroom treatment as per company standard and there's a
tenners worth of thanks to you in it for you..;-)
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
...
In message om,
" writes

This morning's painfully slow journey between Fulham Broadway and Earl'
Court at about 7.45a.m. must surely have broken the record.

Delays of several minutes at Fulham Broadway, repeated on the approach
to West Brompton. Then further minutes' delays on leaving West Brompton
and then on the approach to Earl's Court.

Here's a list of the excsues provided by the driver (in the order in
which they were announced):-

Which all sound quite plausible to me. As drivers we're expected to pass
as much information onto the customers as possible to reassure them. We
don't always receive an awful lot though.

1. Engineering works at Earl's Court which meant a delaysed engineering
possession this morning.

Often happens - more so these days since the management of the maintenance
passed to private companies under the PPP.

2. Signalling problems at Earl's Court meant that trains were "passing
through Earl's Court, but very slowly".

Which might or might not be related to the above. In any case,
'signalling problems' are so common (especially at EC) as to not cause
much reaction.

3. A train ahead of us at Earl's Court had to be "reformed" (whatever
that means - the thought of shunting maneouvres at Earl's Court
intrigues me!).

Ah, now.... jargon (which is frowned upon). What it means is that train 4
which was, maybe, going to Upminster has now been renamed to be called
train 12 which is going to Tower Hill and the driver who is booked to
drive train 12 needs to take it over. It's actually a very common
procedure on LU but is really of no concern to the customers.

4. The train ahead of us was in the platform at Earl's Court and was
awating a driver.

The aforementioned reform failed as the new driver was still having his
(late) meal relief and nobody (mainly the managers who should be managing
these things) realised?

Do readers think this info (or misinfo) was being provided to the
driver by the Department for Lame Excuses or was he told "make it up as
you go along"?

(As a driver!) I think the driver did his best to keep you all informed
with the limited information he had at his disposal. We're wrong if we
say nothing, and wrong if the information isn't 100% accurate, but we can
only pass on what we're told.

Steve, I've told you before about telling the punters the truth. In future
give 'em the mushroom treatment as per company standard and there's a
tenners worth of thanks to you in it for you..;-)
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

Steve,

I certainly did not mean to criticise the driver per se - at least he
was giving some information, which is precisely what, in my experience,
90% do not.

But as several hundred of us were crammed together in the stifling heat
for 7 or 8 minutes without movement, can you imagine the sighs of
contemptuous derision that met the news that the train ahead of us was
waiting for a driver?! It beggars belief that in the morning rush hour
a situation can arise where a train is effectively left abandoned at a
station, thus holding up the entire line, either because the outgoing
driver has left the train or because the incoming driver is not there -
FOR WHATEVER REASON? It's all very well to talk of meal reliefs and
the like, but in a properly managed railway the driver should be
waiting there to take over the train - even if it means he has to be
standing there for 10 minutes in case the train is early. Surely it is
within capabilities to have this arranged so that when, for example,
the train leaves West Brompton, the new driver is told to be on the
platform?

Marc.

In message . com,
" writes

I certainly did not mean to criticise the driver per se - at least he
was giving some information, which is precisely what, in my experience,
90% do not.

But as several hundred of us were crammed together in the stifling heat
for 7 or 8 minutes without movement, can you imagine the sighs of
contemptuous derision that met the news that the train ahead of us was
waiting for a driver?! It beggars belief that in the morning rush hour
a situation can arise where a train is effectively left abandoned at a
station, thus holding up the entire line, either because the outgoing
driver has left the train or because the incoming driver is not there -
FOR WHATEVER REASON? It's all very well to talk of meal reliefs and
the like, but in a properly managed railway the driver should be
waiting there to take over the train - even if it means he has to be
standing there for 10 minutes in case the train is early. Surely it is
within capabilities to have this arranged so that when, for example,
the train leaves West Brompton, the new driver is told to be on the
platform?

You're quite right - in principle. That is what happens when everything
is running fine. Once there are problems with the service, then drivers
get off late for their meal relief from their first half of duty and are
also often in the wrong places. They are still entitled to their unpaid
half hour break as it's their time, so they take it. There are also
restrictions on the number of hours we can drive without a break (4.25
hours) and once we reach that we must have a break. This then means
that they are not in place for their second half. Normal procedure in
these cases would be to get a spare driver to take over until such time
that the original driver is available. Of course, in the circumstances
you describe, they had probably run out of spares too. Of course, not
having a driver to take over doesn't stop the trains coming.

Of course, it's quite reasonable to assume that if a train is being
reformed, then the 'new' train has a driver available for it and I would
have thought that was a consideration in doing so. I can't comment on
why it would happen other than we get this sort of thing regularly on
the Picc too. I could suggest bad management, but I'm sure SD will put
me right on that score

I'm not saying any of this is right or making excuses, just trying to
give an explanation as to what may have been going on in the background.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message . com,
" writes

I certainly did not mean to criticise the driver per se - at least he
was giving some information, which is precisely what, in my experience,
90% do not.

But as several hundred of us were crammed together in the stifling heat
for 7 or 8 minutes without movement, can you imagine the sighs of
contemptuous derision that met the news that the train ahead of us was
waiting for a driver?! It beggars belief that in the morning rush hour
a situation can arise where a train is effectively left abandoned at a
station, thus holding up the entire line, either because the outgoing
driver has left the train or because the incoming driver is not there -
FOR WHATEVER REASON? It's all very well to talk of meal reliefs and
the like, but in a properly managed railway the driver should be
waiting there to take over the train - even if it means he has to be
standing there for 10 minutes in case the train is early. Surely it is
within capabilities to have this arranged so that when, for example,
the train leaves West Brompton, the new driver is told to be on the
platform?

You're quite right - in principle. That is what happens when everything
is running fine. Once there are problems with the service, then drivers
get off late for their meal relief from their first half of duty and are
also often in the wrong places. They are still entitled to their unpaid
half hour break as it's their time, so they take it. There are also
restrictions on the number of hours we can drive without a break (4.25
hours) and once we reach that we must have a break. This then means
that they are not in place for their second half. Normal procedure in
these cases would be to get a spare driver to take over until such time
that the original driver is available. Of course, in the circumstances
you describe, they had probably run out of spares too. Of course, not
having a driver to take over doesn't stop the trains coming.

Of course, it's quite reasonable to assume that if a train is being
reformed, then the 'new' train has a driver available for it and I would
have thought that was a consideration in doing so. I can't comment on
why it would happen other than we get this sort of thing regularly on
the Picc too. I could suggest bad management, but I'm sure SD will put
me right on that score

I'm not saying any of this is right or making excuses, just trying to
give an explanation as to what may have been going on in the background.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Thanks, Steve, for the information. I realise that we live in a far
from ideal world!

Can you believe that, until a couple of years ago, when someone on this
forum directed me to a an accurate line diagram, I believed that the
almost inevitable stop of Eastbound District Line trains approaching
Earl's Court from West Brompton was because I assumed that the
Westbound Ealing/Richmond line trains had to cross the path, West of
Earl's Court! I still find it hard to imagine how the cut-under is
fitted into such a short space.

Marc.