In article ,
Recliner wrote:
The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line
entirely in tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with
surface or double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****,
this must be the worst.

You *really* should look at details of the dispute. Not just take The
Mail's word for it.

For your education it's very difficult to find out the true facts behind
any industrial dispute. The press, as with everything else, tell the
'facts' the public want to hear.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW 12

Dave Plowman wrote on 21 May 2009 23:16:59 ...
In article ,
Recliner wrote:
The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line
entirely in tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with
surface or double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****,
this must be the worst.

You *really* should look at details of the dispute. Not just take The
Mail's word for it.

Ideally, yes. Perhaps you can tell us where to find such details, as
they are not even on the RMT site. Do you disagree with the TfL press
release on the subject?

For your education it's very difficult to find out the true facts behind
any industrial dispute. The press, as with everything else, tell the
'facts' the public want to hear.

No, they tell the facts that are available to them. If the RMT did a
better job of explaining what really happened, instead of going on
strike ostensibly because LU haven't fitted a safety feature to
42-year-old trains that are about to be replaced, then we would have a
better chance of understanding the "true facts". But then the RMT
aren't really interested in us.

[crosspost to uk.rec.driving removed, since off-topic for them]
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On May 22, 12:12*am, "Richard J." wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote on 21 May 2009 23:16:59 ...

In article ,
* *Recliner wrote:
*The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line
entirely in tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with
surface or double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****,
this must be the worst.

You *really* should look at details of the dispute. Not just take The
Mail's word for it.

Ideally, yes. *Perhaps you can tell us where to find such details, as
they are not even on the RMT site. *Do you disagree with the TfL press
release on the subject?

I'm sure Mr Plowman would say that the TfL press release only tells
part of the story. Indeed, as reasonable as it sounds, I imagine
there's more to this dispute than that (i.e. a more general breakdown
in relations between management and some staff etc - note that I'm not
saying the management's at fault, nor am I saying they're perfect, I'm
just saying that a TfL press release cannot possibly explore all of
this).


For your education it's very difficult to find out the true facts behind
any industrial dispute. The press, as with everything else, tell the
'facts' the public want to hear.

No, they tell the facts that are available to them. *If the RMT did a
better job of explaining what really happened, instead of going on
strike ostensibly because LU haven't fitted a safety feature to
42-year-old trains that are about to be replaced, then we would have a
better chance of understanding the "true facts". *But then the RMT
aren't really interested in us.

The problem for the RMT is that it wouldn't look too good for them to
go big on what (I think) this dispute is really about - which is that
they are objecting to heavier disciplinary procedures for train
operators if they do something wrong. If this is what the RMT told the
public, the public might well just turn back and ask the RMT what
exactly is wrong with their members being disciplined for doing
something that could affect safety.

And, to be fair it's easy for members of the public to say "well train
operators should be capable of concentrating and opening the doors on
the right side" without taking into account the quasi-hypnotic nature
of watching tube tunnels for hours on end.

In essence the RMT is somewhat stymied from publicly making its
argument for fear of a public backlash.

Of course the information from LU suggests that the RMT are also
trying to have a driver who was somewhat less than truthful during a
disciplinary reinstated. LU are suggesting this is the root cause,
though I can imagine there might be other things causing tension too -
but it's also easy to come to the conclusion that this is the RMT
pitching in for a battle of willpower against LU, trying to get this
driver reinstated so as to prove that they are the ever mighty union.

What I would be curious to know is how many wrong-side door openings
there have been on the Victoria line in recent years. Could that be an
FOI request?


[crosspost to uk.rec.driving removed, since off-topic for them]

Who x-posted to them in the first place!

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Recliner wrote:
The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line
entirely in tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with
surface or double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****,
this must be the worst.

You *really* should look at details of the dispute. Not just take The
Mail's word for it.

For your education it's very difficult to find out the true facts behind
any industrial dispute. The press, as with everything else, tell the
'facts' the public want to hear.


The BBC news reported it in an awful way. They asked two passengers what
they thought. The first was a suited man, obviously used because he looked
like a typical business man. They then asked a woman her views - she looked
like she had just left an Oscar party. They were used to set up the shot of
a black tube driver wearing a cap with a fag hanging out his mouth.



--
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"MrBitsy" wrote in message


C) The trains are due to be replaced in a couple of years time
anyway.

In two years, this mistake is likely to happen again - I hope it is
not someone you love who may be injured.

It would take longer to modify the current stock than they will remain in
service. The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line entirely in
tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with surface or
double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****, this must be
the worst.


A man lost his job, regardless where the line is.

--
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

On May 22, 7:40*pm, "MrBitsy" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:

"MrBitsy" wrote:

C) The trains are due to be replaced in a couple of years time
anyway.

In two years, this mistake is likely to happen again - I hope it is
not someone you love who may be injured.

It would take longer to modify the current stock than they will remain in
service. The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line entirely in
tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with surface or
double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****, this must be
the worst.

A man lost his job, regardless where the line is.


To which one could retort that he didn't do his job in the first
place, and then proceeded to be economical with the actualité when
questioned about the incident.

Also, not sure if you've noticed, but lots of people are losing their
jobs at the moment.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On May 22, 7:40 pm, "MrBitsy" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:

"MrBitsy" wrote:

C) The trains are due to be replaced in a couple of years time
anyway.

In two years, this mistake is likely to happen again - I hope it is
not someone you love who may be injured.

It would take longer to modify the current stock than they will remain
in
service. The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line entirely
in
tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with surface or
double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****, this must be
the worst.

A man lost his job, regardless where the line is.


To which one could retort that he didn't do his job in the first
place, and then proceeded to be economical with the actualité when
questioned about the incident.

Obviously he made a mistake. The problem is, if the trains still have this
flaw, other humans will also make the same mistake at some point.

Also, not sure if you've noticed, but lots of people are losing their
jobs at the moment.

I was made redundant in 2006, I do know what it feels like.


--
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

MrBitsy wrote on 22 May 2009 19:40:12 ...
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"MrBitsy" wrote in message


C) The trains are due to be replaced in a couple of years time
anyway.
In two years, this mistake is likely to happen again - I hope it is
not someone you love who may be injured.
It would take longer to modify the current stock than they will remain in
service. The demand is simply absurd. In any case, with a line entirely in
tunnel, the risk to pax is less than on any line with surface or
double-track tunnel running. Of all the bizarre Crow-****, this must be
the worst.

A man lost his job, regardless where the line is.

A man lost his job, not because he made a mistake, but because after
making a mistake he failed to carry out the proper safe procedure. If
the union think that sacking him was not justified, they should take the
matter to an industrial tribunal, rather than inconveniencing thousands
of passengers.

We are told that the monotony of the job makes it easy to make this sort
of mistake. Is that because the cab windows are in the tunnel when the
train stops, and the driver can't therefore see which side the platform
is by looking through his side window? If so, why don't they put some
big signs on the tunnel walls opposite where the cab window stops? (X
on the wrong side, tick on the correct side, or something like that.)
Just a bit easier and quicker to implement than retro-fitting CSDE on
42-year-old trains. That's if the assessed risk justifies any action at
all.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 22:47:50
on Fri, 22 May 2009, Richard J. remarked:
We are told that the monotony of the job makes it easy to make this
sort of mistake. Is that because the cab windows are in the tunnel
when the train stops, and the driver can't therefore see which side the
platform is by looking through his side window?

They have to be able to see the CCTV monitors, which are at the end of
the platform by the driver.

It's also the case that the driver has spent the previous twenty seconds
*driving through* the station, and therefore the platform side is fairly
obvious.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Richard J.
writes
snip
why don't they put some
big signs on the tunnel walls opposite where the cab window stops? (X
on the wrong side, tick on the correct side, or something like that.)

Why not, indeed? The mainline railways (well, Southeastern at least -
don't know about the others) have "open doors other side" notices
attached to the CCTV monitors on the "wrong" side at many stations -
but not *all* stations, and I don't know how they decide whether they
are necessary.
--
Bill Borland