Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lack of trains on the drain | London Transport | |||
Sudbury Hill (Harrow) lack of information | London Transport | |||
FGW Link excels even Thames Strains at public safety (lack of ...) | London Transport | |||
Lack of road markings in Kensington & Chelsea | London Transport | |||
Thameslink ticket checks - or lack of! | London Transport |