New subsurface trains
 

Whilst escaping from rain in Euston today I popped in to see the model.
Amongst the features of interest:

* The carriages have a strong overground feel to them, both on the outside
and inside.

* The carriages are linked like current DLR cars and trams with passengers
able to walk the length of the train. This may, however, make it impossible
to have a half-length train for Chesham - see below.

* There are door open buttons - will TfL ever make up their mind about
these? - but no, as far as I could see, door close buttons.

* There's a mixture of seats including sideways, cross ways and fold down. I
have to say I don't like the angle of the seats for long journeys on the
Met.

* The seats are attached to the wall rather than the floor, allowing bags to
be put under them.

* There will be airconditioning on the trains, taking advantage of the old
arrangements in the tunnels for steam.

* The carriages will be used on all four sub-surface lines with platform
lengthenings where necessary (and presumably also track variations). As well
as the possibility of formal line rearrangements (e.g. Met to Barking and
turning the rest of the H&C and Circle into a Tea-Cup) this also makes it
easier to run special services, particularly to bypass engineering works.
(How likely is a Wimbledon to Barking via Baker Street through service when
the Embankment route is out of action?) However it could create problems for
the Chesham shuttle service - the bay road at Chalfont & Latimer is too
short for a full-length train (as would be a restored bay at Chesham) and
the station prevents expansion.

(Come to think of it isn't one of the latest timetable proposals aiming to
replace the shuttle service with through trains diverted from Amersham?)

New subsurface trains
 

On 1 Oct, 21:49, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
* The carriages have a strong overground feel to them, both on the outside
and inside.

They're Electrostars with a different bodyshell profile and quite a
lot of bespoke fittings.

* There are door open buttons - will TfL ever make up their mind about
these? - but no, as far as I could see, door close buttons.

The doors auto-close after 40 seconds to keep the air-conditioned air
in, and the button is to re-open them.

* There's a mixture of seats including sideways, cross ways and fold down. I
have to say I don't like the angle of the seats for long journeys on the
Met.

The carriage on the left is Met (mixed longitudinal and transverse),
the one on the right is Circle/District (transverse both sides).

* The carriages will be used on all four sub-surface lines with platform
lengthenings where necessary (and presumably also track variations).

The Met will still have its own unique trains. (8 vs 7 cars and a
unique seating layout)

(How likely is a Wimbledon to Barking via Baker Street through service when
the Embankment route is out of action?)

You'd still have to find a drivers that are trained on all the parts
of the route.

(Come to think of it isn't one of the latest timetable proposals aiming to
replace the shuttle service with through trains diverted from Amersham?)

Yes. I can't see anything else happening.

U

New subsurface trains
 

On 1 Oct, 22:36, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:49, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

* The carriages have a strong overground feel to them, both on the outside
and inside.

They're Electrostars with a different bodyshell profile and quite a
lot of bespoke fittings.

* There are door open buttons - will TfL ever make up their mind about
these? - but no, as far as I could see, door close buttons.

The doors auto-close after 40 seconds to keep the air-conditioned air
in, and the button is to re-open them.

* There's a mixture of seats including sideways, cross ways and fold down. I
have to say I don't like the angle of the seats for long journeys on the
Met.

The carriage on the left is Met (mixed longitudinal and transverse),
the one on the right is Circle/District (transverse both sides).

* The carriages will be used on all four sub-surface lines with platform
lengthenings where necessary (and presumably also track variations).

The Met will still have its own unique trains. (8 vs 7 cars and a
unique seating layout)

(How likely is a Wimbledon to Barking via Baker Street through service when
the Embankment route is out of action?)

You'd still have to find a drivers that are trained on all the parts
of the route.

(Come to think of it isn't one of the latest timetable proposals aiming to
replace the shuttle service with through trains diverted from Amersham?)

Yes. I can't see anything else happening.

U

I was having a moment of curiosity last night about the train lengths,
and vaguely recalled (and seemed to find mentions of) platform
lengthening as part of the upgrade...but no details. Don't suppose
anyone knows any?

New subsurface trains
 

Jamie Thompson wrote:

I was having a moment of curiosity last night about the train lengths,
and vaguely recalled (and seemed to find mentions of) platform
lengthening as part of the upgrade...but no details. Don't suppose
anyone knows any?

I can't recall details myself but the lengthening was announced on a display
next to the model carriage(s) with a promise of longer Circle and H&C
trains. However if the Mets are still going to be even longer it could
continue to cause crowd problems on the shared tracks when passengers often
have no idea which particular line train will turn up next, making it harder
to disperse them along the platform.

New subsurface trains
 

Mr Thant wrote:

* There's a mixture of seats including sideways, cross ways and fold
down. I
have to say I don't like the angle of the seats for long journeys on the
Met.

The carriage on the left is Met (mixed longitudinal and transverse),
the one on the right is Circle/District (transverse both sides).

Interesting, since my recollection is the carriages are being billed as for
all four lines. (And the map diagrams inside are all Mets.) This does sound
as though a spanner has been put in the works of trains that can easily
switch lines as and when necessary.

* The carriages will be used on all four sub-surface lines with platform
lengthenings where necessary (and presumably also track variations).

The Met will still have its own unique trains. (8 vs 7 cars and a
unique seating layout)

As I said in my other post, I think this will continue the problems at some
Circle/H&C/Met stations. The Liverpool Street to Moorgate portion of my
trips often involves a lot of guesswork about where the end car will stop
at.

(How likely is a Wimbledon to Barking via Baker Street through service
when
the Embankment route is out of action?)

You'd still have to find a drivers that are trained on all the parts
of the route.

True, but if the stock is transferable can the drivers also be trained for
redeployment and specials where necessary?

New subsurface trains
 

No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any attempt to
change this arrangement and introduce an element of flexibility would
have to be negotiated with the unions, drivers are also supposed to
drive over a route at least every 6 months to retain their route
knowledge, although I'd happily never see Chesham again!

The reason that all the carriages are decorated with Met diagrams is
that the Met will be the first line to get these new trains.

True, but if the stock is transferable can the drivers also be trained for
redeployment and specials where necessary?

New subsurface trains
 

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Mr Thant wrote:

* There's a mixture of seats including sideways, cross ways and fold
down. I have to say I don't like the angle of the seats for long
journeys on the Met.

The carriage on the left is Met (mixed longitudinal and transverse),
the one on the right is Circle/District (transverse both sides).

Interesting, since my recollection is the carriages are being billed as for
all four lines. (And the map diagrams inside are all Mets.)

I noted that, somewhat pessimistically, the network maps in these future
trains were still showing the ELL as being bustituted. :)

This does sound as though a spanner has been put in the works of trains
that can easily switch lines as and when necessary.

I think the difference in length will be a bigger spanner.

* The carriages will be used on all four sub-surface lines with platform
lengthenings where necessary (and presumably also track variations).

The Met will still have its own unique trains. (8 vs 7 cars and a
unique seating layout)

As I said in my other post, I think this will continue the problems at
some Circle/H&C/Met stations. The Liverpool Street to Moorgate portion
of my trips often involves a lot of guesswork about where the end car
will stop at.

So don't wait for the end car!

Someone here noted the deficiency of grabbable rails, i think. I visited
the mockups today, and i agree: if you're standing next to the fixed
seats, you may have trouble finding something to grab (that won't get you
arrested). I couldn't see any reason why longitudinal rails couldn't have
been fitted above the fixed seats, as they are above the tip-up seats and
in the vestibule.

I neglected to take my bike in to see how it would fit in the vestibule
and luggage space. Not sure how the staff would have reacted to that!

I overheard one of the TfL chaps (there was a huge posse there - there was
a deaf guy and a guy in wheelchair there, so maybe some kind of visit by
disabled people to inspect the new trains) mention a cunning design
featu the open buttons on the outside of the doors are at the edge, not
in the middle, which leads people who want to get on to move to the side
of the doorway, thus letting passengers off the train first, as the saying
goes. Since the doors will open automatically at any station busy enough
for this to be useful, i am skeptical about the utility of this.

tom

--
That's no moon!

New subsurface trains
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

As I said in my other post, I think this will continue the problems at
some Circle/H&C/Met stations. The Liverpool Street to Moorgate portion of
my trips often involves a lot of guesswork about where the end car will
stop at.

So don't wait for the end car!

It's the one nearest the subway at Moorgate for the interchange. If one is
fiollowing the advice to board the part of the train nearest the exit at the
destination, as so many crowd control notices over the years say, it helps
if there is only one such place to get that part.

More pertinantly the westbound platform at Liverpool Street gets badly
crowded as it is - being able to use the full length with confidence would
help.

I overheard one of the TfL chaps (there was a huge posse there - there was
a deaf guy and a guy in wheelchair there, so maybe some kind of visit by
disabled people to inspect the new trains) mention a cunning design
featu the open buttons on the outside of the doors are at the edge, not
in the middle, which leads people who want to get on to move to the side
of the doorway, thus letting passengers off the train first, as the saying
goes.

Anyone who thinks this has clearly never seen a national rail service with
the buttons at the side at a busy station. It makes little difference where
the buttons are located.

New subsurface trains
 

On 3 Oct, 00:36, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
As I said in my other post, I think this will continue the problems at
some Circle/H&C/Met stations. The Liverpool Street to Moorgate portion of
my trips often involves a lot of guesswork about where the end car will
stop at.
So don't wait for the end car!

It's the one nearest the subway at Moorgate for the interchange. If one is
fiollowing the advice to board the part of the train nearest the exit at the
destination, as so many crowd control notices over the years say, it helps
if there is only one such place to get that part.

For a regular user, it's not difficult to note that Barking/
Hammersmith/Circle etc means short train and Aldgate/Uxbridge/Watford
etc means long train (if the indicators are working).

(I mention this because you said "my trips". Fair enough that for
occasional travellers this won't be obvious at all.)

Also, don't trains stop at the eastern end at both Liverpool Street
and Moorgate anyway, with the variations in stop positions being at
the western end?


More pertinantly the westbound platform at Liverpool Street gets badly
crowded as it is - being able to use the full length with confidence would
help.

I overheard one of the TfL chaps (there was a huge posse there - there was
a deaf guy and a guy in wheelchair there, so maybe some kind of visit by
disabled people to inspect the new trains) mention a cunning design
featu the open buttons on the outside of the doors are at the edge, not
in the middle, which leads people who want to get on to move to the side
of the doorway, thus letting passengers off the train first, as the saying
goes.

Anyone who thinks this has clearly never seen a national rail service with
the buttons at the side at a busy station. It makes little difference where
the buttons are located.

New subsurface trains
 

MIG wrote:

It's the one nearest the subway at Moorgate for the interchange. If one
is
fiollowing the advice to board the part of the train nearest the exit at
the
destination, as so many crowd control notices over the years say, it
helps
if there is only one such place to get that part.

For a regular user, it's not difficult to note that Barking/
Hammersmith/Circle etc means short train and Aldgate/Uxbridge/Watford
etc means long train (if the indicators are working).

The indicators are often not giving information until shortly before the
train comes into the platform, instead beaming the mantra about north &
westbound trains. So you'd need to wait in a crowded area for this info
which defeats the purpose of crowd control.

Also, don't trains stop at the eastern end at both Liverpool Street
and Moorgate anyway, with the variations in stop positions being at
the western end?

At Moorgate they do, but at Liverpool Street they don't (when to going to
Euston Square which is the front of the train this is never a problem).

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 2, 11:56 pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any attempt to
change this arrangement and introduce an element of flexibility would
have to be negotiated with the unions,

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 2, 11:56 pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any attempt to
change this arrangement and introduce an element of flexibility would
have to be negotiated with the unions,

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Unions! How does it go again... one man one job, no change without full
discussion and agreement, blah blah blah, oh and more £££!!

New subsurface trains
 

In message
, at
05:49:00 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any attempt to
change this arrangement and introduce an element of flexibility would
have to be negotiated with the unions,

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

How commute can be a part of the working day???

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 6, 2:56 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:49:00 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:

No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any attempt to
change this arrangement and introduce an element of flexibility would
have to be negotiated with the unions,

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On 6 Oct, 16:27, Boltar wrote:
No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any attempt to
change this arrangement and introduce an element of flexibility would
have to be negotiated with the unions,

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

If you live in Upminster, book on in Upminster, but are suddenly told
your new booking-on point is Heathrow, do the extra three hours you're
spending getting to Heathrow and back every shift get classed as part
of your working day? If not, then it's not too hard to see why it
might make people grumpy.

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

New subsurface trains
 

In message
, at
07:57:40 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Alex
remarked:
Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

How commute can be a part of the working day???

If your employer mandates that you don't work from the local deport, but
start work at 5am the other side of London, why shouldn't it?
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

In message
, at
08:27:07 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is another.
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Alex
wrote:


Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

How commute can be a part of the working day???

Quite easily if you are not working in your base location.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

New subsurface trains
 

When is the stock starting in service?

New subsurface trains
 

John B wrote:
On 6 Oct, 16:27, Boltar wrote:
No drivers will still operate on their allotted lines, any
attempt to change this arrangement and introduce an element of
flexibility would have to be negotiated with the unions,

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about
where FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are
provided to/ from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

If you live in Upminster, book on in Upminster, but are suddenly told
your new booking-on point is Heathrow, do the extra three hours you're
spending getting to Heathrow and back every shift get classed as part
of your working day? If not, then it's not too hard to see why it
might make people grumpy.

Er... if you lived in Upminster and book-on at Upminster, you'd (probably)
be a D stock driver. So you'd hardly be asked to book-on at Heathrow, as
there is no District Line depot at that end of the Piccadilly Line!
However pedantry aside, I do take your point...

In the Upminster example provided, I would consider a small taxi journey
reasonable enough; Upminster to Barking or East Ham say, but not Ealing
Common or Neasden. But common sense needs to work both ways and
LUL management shouldn't be expecting drivers to book-on at such distant
places in the first place.

New subsurface trains
 

In the Upminster example provided, I would consider a small taxi journey
reasonable enough; Upminster to Barking or East Ham say, but not Ealing
Common or Neasden. But common sense needs to work both ways and
LUL management shouldn't be expecting drivers to book-on at such distant
places in the first place.

I wonder if this can be solved by defining a group of primary depot
and several secondary depots/stations nearby for every train operator.
Like: Upminster/Barking/East Ham, Edgware Road/Earls Court/High Street
Kensington, etc.

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 6, 4:44 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
08:27:07 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is another.

Well, see in the real world commuting isn't part of the working day.
My working day starts at 9am. That means I have to be at my desk at
9am , not getting out of bed at 9am. The commuting is something I have
to do to get to work. I'm sorry if the poor darlings at LU have an
issue with having to do the same but it seems to me thats a case of
tough ****.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 6, 4:35 pm, John B wrote:
If you live in Upminster, book on in Upminster, but are suddenly told
your new booking-on point is Heathrow, do the extra three hours you're
spending getting to Heathrow and back every shift get classed as part
of your working day? If not, then it's not too hard to see why it
might make people grumpy.

So they have to travel around the M25 at 4 in the morning when theres
bugger all traffic? So what? Besides, I think its highly unlikely that
would happen anyway but I don't see why a driver booking on at
upminster shouldn't be expected to drive to amersham if the job
requires it. But then this is LU Driver World we're talking about, not
the real world. Anyone would think they were being asked to drive a
train to john o groats , not the other side of a city.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
How commute can be a part of the working day???

Quite easily if you are not working in your base location.

There are a number of people on this group who seriously need a
reality check.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:44 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 08:27:07 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar
remarked:

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about
where FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are
provided to/ from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is
another.

Well, see in the real world commuting isn't part of the working day.
My working day starts at 9am. That means I have to be at my desk at
9am , not getting out of bed at 9am. The commuting is something I have
to do to get to work. I'm sorry if the poor darlings at LU have an
issue with having to do the same but it seems to me thats a case of
tough ****.

In the real world you know your place of work when you choose where to live
and vice versa. If your company has a habit of finishing your shift all over
the city, you would normally be on paid time until you get back to your
normal place of work (but not back to your house).

New subsurface trains
 

"John Rowland" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

In the real world you know your place of work when you choose where to
live and vice versa.

True, but it can and does change - either short-term or long-term.

If your company has a habit of finishing your shift all over the city,
you would normally be on paid time until you get back to your normal
place of work (but not back to your house).

Ha. Yeh, right...

Meanwhile, here in the real world, employers relocate. They move jobs to
different sites. You work on customer's sites.

New subsurface trains
 

In message
, at
02:43:48 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is another.

Well, see in the real world commuting isn't part of the working day.
My working day starts at 9am. That means I have to be at my desk at
9am , not getting out of bed at 9am. The commuting is something I have
to do to get to work. I'm sorry if the poor darlings at LU have an
issue with having to do the same but it seems to me thats a case of
tough ****.

That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 11:12 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
In the real world you know your place of work when you choose where to live
and vice versa.

Total ********. In the real world unless you're being head hunted you
take whatever job comes your way and if it means travelling for an
hour or 2 to get there thats tough luck.

If your company has a habit of finishing your shift all over
the city, you would normally be on paid time until you get back to your
normal place of work (but not back to your house).

If the drivers don't like moving around the place perhaps they should
have considered getting a desk job.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 11:43 am, Roland Perry wrote:
That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

In message
, at
04:27:46 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

It depends what they were led to expect when they took the job.
Obviously there are many jobs that require a great deal of flexibility.
You mentioned airline pilots (who fly a ridiculously low number of hours
each month, as it happens) and there's an expectation that you'll be
sent to all sorts of odd places on a "tour" of duty. But I don't think
the airline could hire you to be based at Heathrow, and then
unilaterally say "Surprise, now you need to report to Liverpool each
morning".
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 12:27*pm, Boltar wrote:
That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

Eh? The comparison isn't whether the pilot is flying *to* HK or Dubai,
it's whether he's flying *from* Gatwick or Stansted. And in real life,
airline unions do, rightly, have exactly the same issues with
relocation of home airport as rail unions.

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

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 12:59 pm, John B wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:27 pm, Boltar wrote:

That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

Eh? The comparison isn't whether the pilot is flying *to* HK or Dubai,
it's whether he's flying *from* Gatwick or Stansted. And in real life,
airline unions do, rightly, have exactly the same issues with
relocation of home airport as rail unions.

Theres a slight difference between moving to stansted from gatwick
than say moving from upminster to neasden. The latter sort of distance
is what most people would consider a reasonable commute. If you take a
job on a transport system in a city I don't see whats unreasonable
about being expected to have to travel to different places every day
within that city. In another life I was an on site engineer and I had
to travel around the south and the midlands and be at customer sites
first thing in the morning. I wonder how it would have gone down with
my boss if I'd had a hissy fit and stomped my foot and refused to be
anywhere else at 9am other than the company office. I'd have been
fired within the month.

B2003

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 1:35*pm, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:59 pm, John B wrote:



On Oct 7, 12:27 pm, Boltar wrote:

That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

Eh? The comparison isn't whether the pilot is flying *to* HK or Dubai,
it's whether he's flying *from* Gatwick or Stansted. And in real life,
airline unions do, rightly, have exactly the same issues with
relocation of home airport as rail unions.

Theres a slight difference between moving to stansted from gatwick
than say moving from upminster to neasden. The latter sort of distance
is what most people would consider a reasonable commute.

GMaps reckons 1h24 drive from Stansted to Gatwick, and 0h57 drive from
Upminster to Neasden. I'm not sure that puts the two in radically
different brackets. If I took a job that featured a daily 15min
commute each way from home, and was relocated without consultation to
a job that featured an hour each way, I'd be livid.

If you take a
job on a transport system in a city I don't see whats unreasonable
about being expected to have to travel to different places every day
within that city.

Because your contract says you're based wherever you're based and
start your work day there.

In another life I was an on site engineer and I had
to travel around the south and the midlands and be at customer sites
first thing in the morning. I wonder how it would have gone down with
my boss if I'd had a hissy fit and stomped my foot and refused to be
anywhere else at 9am other than the company office. I'd have been
fired within the month.

Indeed, and in my role as a strategy consultant (for another 3 days,
hurrah!) my managers would take exactly the same view.

That's why, when I took the job, I signed a release saying that I
understood I'd have to report to varying offices in the UK and
internationally at varying times to meet my professional requirements,
and that I waived my rights under the EU working time directive. And
in exchange, they agreed to pay me quite a lot and grant me quite a
lot of flexibility on when I took hours whenever there weren't
specific client commitments.

If, having taken that role, my employers had instead required me to
work a regimented shift pattern on a weekly basis including
nightshifts and subjected to a rigorous physical fitness and alcohol
testing regime, that would have been constructive dismissal.

The same applies for Tube staff, but the other way round.

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

New subsurface trains
 

In message
, at
05:35:55 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:
Theres a slight difference between moving to stansted from gatwick
than say moving from upminster to neasden. The latter sort of distance
is what most people would consider a reasonable commute.

But only if it's what you signed up to in the beginning.

If you take a job on a transport system in a city I don't see whats
unreasonable about being expected to have to travel to different places
every day within that city.

So a bus driver who takes a job at the Romford garage (because he lives
in Romford) can be told that suddenly he has to report for work in
Croydon?

In another life I was an on site engineer and I had to travel around
the south and the midlands and be at customer sites first thing in the
morning.

But you knew that was the deal when you signed up.
--
Roland Perry

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 10:43*am, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:44 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
08:27:07 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is another.

Well, see in the real world commuting isn't part of the working day.
My working day starts at 9am. That means I have to be at my desk at
9am , not getting out of bed at 9am. The commuting is something I have
to do to get to work. I'm sorry if the poor darlings at LU have an
issue with having to do the same but it seems to me thats a case of
tough ****.

B2003

I live in Watford and took a job in Stevenage. A week into the job
they told me to go to the office in Portsmouth. They considerately
provided a car and paid for petrol but after a month they realised it
would be cheaper not to provide the car and that I would use my car
but only get milage up to the equiavalent of getting a hire car.
Now some LU staff are belly aching about relocating to other places
within London for God's sake, whingers.

Kevin

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 10:46*am, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:35 pm, John B wrote:

If you live in Upminster, book on in Upminster, but are suddenly told
your new booking-on point is Heathrow, do the extra three hours you're
spending getting to Heathrow and back every shift get classed as part
of your working day? If not, then it's not too hard to see why it
might make people grumpy.

So they have to travel around the M25 at 4 in the morning when theres
bugger all traffic? So what? Besides, I think its highly unlikely that
would happen anyway but I don't see why a driver booking on at
upminster shouldn't be expected to drive to amersham if the job
requires it. But then this is LU Driver World we're talking about, not
the real world. Anyone would think they were being asked to drive a
train to john o groats , not the other side of a city.

B2003

And they haven't even begun to intimidate TfL and the Government over
the Olympics yet. I can see it now in return for working "NORMALLY"
during the 2 weeks of the Olympics they want a 20 hour week and a 50%
pay increase and 3 months holiday a year and retire at 55 on a non
contributary pension. About sums it up I think.

Kevin

New subsurface trains
 

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Kev wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:43*am, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:44 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
08:27:07 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Boltar remarked:

Why? Surely you're just paid to drive trains , not quibble about where
FFS. As long as you're trained on the stock and taxis are provided to/
from home late/early in the day whats the problem?

Is the commute in your proposal part of the working day?

Huh?

A free taxi is one thing, but riding in it in your own time is another.

Well, see in the real world commuting isn't part of the working day. My
working day starts at 9am. That means I have to be at my desk at 9am ,
not getting out of bed at 9am. The commuting is something I have to do
to get to work. I'm sorry if the poor darlings at LU have an issue with
having to do the same but it seems to me thats a case of tough ****.

I live in Watford and took a job in Stevenage. A week into the job they
told me to go to the office in Portsmouth. They considerately provided a
car and paid for petrol but after a month they realised it would be
cheaper not to provide the car and that I would use my car but only get
milage up to the equiavalent of getting a hire car. Now some LU staff
are belly aching about relocating to other places within London for
God's sake, whingers.

Why didn't you quit the job and get one that doesn't involve working for
cocks?

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

New subsurface trains
 

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Boltar wrote:

On Oct 7, 12:59 pm, John B wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:27 pm, Boltar wrote:

That's fine when you took a job at a specific premises. But when your
employer suddenly says you'll be working from somewhere else, then
relocation or transport options are normally provided.

You think truck drivers get relocation expenses if they're asked to
deliver to manchester one day instead of birmingham? Or if a pilot has
to fly to hong kong instead of dubai? Get real. Any job in the
transport industry involves travelling , if they don't like it they
should bog off and get another sort of job.

Eh? The comparison isn't whether the pilot is flying *to* HK or Dubai,
it's whether he's flying *from* Gatwick or Stansted. And in real life,
airline unions do, rightly, have exactly the same issues with
relocation of home airport as rail unions.

Theres a slight difference between moving to stansted from gatwick
than say moving from upminster to neasden. The latter sort of distance
is what most people would consider a reasonable commute.

Anyone who considers Upminster to Neasden a reasonable commute needs their
head examined.

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

New subsurface trains
 

On Oct 7, 5:41*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
I live in Watford and took a job in Stevenage. A week into the job they
told me to go to the office in Portsmouth. They considerately provided a
car and paid for petrol but after a month they realised it would be
cheaper not to provide the car and that I would use my car but only get
milage up to the equiavalent of getting a hire car. Now some LU staff
are belly aching about relocating to other places within London for
God's sake, whingers.

Why didn't you quit the job and get one that doesn't involve working for
cocks?

I've got a guess for this one, but it might be considered
uncharitable.

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