"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Nicola Redwood
writes

I think you are confused. There is no lack of trains, but there is a
severe lack of trains that are available for service. The trains are
unavailable because of an alleged safety-related defect. "Lack of
available trains" seems to me to be a perfectly clear non-tautological
phrase.


The best announcements I've heard whilst waiting for a Circle line train
for
some time at Edgware Rd were "we cannot find the driver" and "the driver
hasn't finished his tea break" Full support for the finishing tea break
driver

The driver is perfectly entitled to his/her break. It's the part of the
working day that you are not being paid by the company, so why shouldn't
they take their half hour? It's also a legal requirement that the driver
has at least a half hour break after 4.25 hours of continuous driving.
When there are problems, it is common (at least on the Picc) to have a
short/late meal break of the minimum allowed and go straight back out and
drive some more.

Just because the person managing the service has failed to handle this
correctly doesn't put the driver at fault as was implied above.
--
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)

That's exactly why I said full support for the driver in my earlier post and
wasn't at all implying the driver was at fault.
The same reason my management are at fault when I don't get to take my lunch
break as has happened all this week

John B wrote:
On 27 Sep, 17:47, "Richard J." wrote:
In another forum, someone has suggested that double-manning would
solve the problem - it certainly would in a 'actual safety' sense,
but since there's no problem in an 'actual safety' sense I'm not
sure how relevant that is...

It's relevant because you could have a Met driver with A-stock
knowledge and an H&C driver with the route knowledge, but the
problem remains where to reverse.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock*
would solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem.
Double-manning A- stock with H&C drivers would definitely still
leave the "I don't know how to work this train, and my mate over
there doesn't know where he's going" problem...

Why is that a problem? I thought that similar situations were allowed
on all railways, just as ships take on a pilot in unfamilar waters.

But you're right about double-manning of C-stock, which would have been
a simpler solution. They could have double-manned the H&C to
Whitechapel and also an Edgware Road - Parsons Green shuttle.

Anyway, it all seems back to almost normal now. Only the Circle has
"severe delays".

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 27 Sep, 22:31, "Richard J." wrote:
Anyway, it all seems back to almost normal now. Only the Circle has
"severe delays".

That sounds *entirely* normal...

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

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

The issue is then whether the platforms east of Aldgate will take 8
cars, including suitable reversing points such as Whitechapel or
Plaistow.

They had better do. They used to take 8 car R stock trains. It has to be
admitted that A stock cars are about 1'11" longer, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

B2003

On 28 Sep, 10:23, Boltar wrote:
Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

A commercial pilot still needs certification for every aircraft type
he flies, even if they are from the same family and have similar
controls. The same is true for trains - i.e. the controls are pretty
similar, the point is about knowing how the train performs under
emergency braking, what to do if it stops working, etc...

When it comes to cars, society is willing to accept a higher risk of
injury and death than other transport in exchange for the convenience
they provide. A fairer way of phrasing your question above would be
"why are motorists allowed to take control of completely different
types of cars without fully familiarising themselves with their
mechanical workings and emergency braking performance, when this would
be considered reckless in more or less every other mode of powered
transport?"

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

Boltar wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

B2003



It's not the layout thats the problem, unlike driving a car though
drivers are supposed to know what to do when something goes wrong, there
is no AA or RAC, C Stock, D Stock and A Stock are very different, C and
A are probably the most similar, but there are massive differences
between them, the problem may be sorted by the introduction of the new
sub surface stock the S stock (make your own mind up what the s will
stand for)but the issue of route knowledge will remain, drivers are
supposed to drive all of their route once every 6 months.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, www.waspies.net wrote:

Boltar wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls?

It's not the layout thats the problem, unlike driving a car though
drivers are supposed to know what to do when something goes wrong, there
is no AA or RAC, C Stock, D Stock and A Stock are very different, C and
A are probably the most similar, but there are massive differences
between them, the problem may be sorted by the introduction of the new
sub surface stock the S stock (make your own mind up what the s will
stand for)but the issue of route knowledge will remain, drivers are
supposed to drive all of their route once every 6 months.

I didn't realise it was that infrequent. In that case, when the S stock
turns up, i hope LU will cross-train all SLL drivers on all those lines,
and possibly even have a single pool of drivers for them. That would allow
them to do this sort of emergency workaround pretty easily.

tom

--
Taking care of business

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote:

On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote:

We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East
(because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL
not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the
District?

- Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there
are apparently infringements at Whitechapel,

According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East
Junction and Upminster.

Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate
Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction
to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for
ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's
divided the lines up?

My source is Tubeprune:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm

Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of
infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and
Dagenham". He also says in:

http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm

"As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be
necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will
have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV
screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between
Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be
necessary."

I don't know how much of this is still up to date.

Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are
shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon?

tom

--
Taking care of business

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote:

On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote:

We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East
(because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not
divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the
District?

- Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there
are apparently infringements at Whitechapel,

According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East
Junction and Upminster.

Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate
Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction
to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for
ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's
divided the lines up?

My source is Tubeprune:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm

Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of
infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and
Dagenham". He also says in:

http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm

"As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be
necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will
have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV
screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between
Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be
necessary."

I don't know how much of this is still up to date.

Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are
shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon?


I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they
definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to
Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the
main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and
late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available as
required for engineering diversions.

Paul