On 23 May, 09:42, Roland Perry wrote:
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

Both of the above imply that the mistake is down to believing that the
platform is on the other side from where it is, rather than just
reaching for the wrong button.

Didn't they used to have to physically go to the window on the
platform side to be able to open the doors on that side? It's
relatively new for all door controls to be in one place, and you'd
think only safely introduced if there were protection systems in place
to compensate for the potential mistakes introduced.

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

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.

Wrong on several counts.

For example, when a similiar incident happened on the Piccadilly about 20
years ago, every train was modified to ensure it didn't happen again; no
fuss, no bother, no strike. Just fixed.

Also, history shows that where unions are concerned, they simply do not get
a fair hearing. In most strikes, all we get to hear is the management side,
and a pontificating journalist who usually takes the management side.

And I'm not making it up; this is normal press, tv and BBC behaviour, and
it's been well documented in published papers.

Next time you see a strike reported, time the management side, and time the
union side - the score is usually about 4-0 on the BBC, 3-0 on ITV and
something like 5 - -4 (dissenting union side voice/carefully selected vox
pop) on Sky.

On a good day it'll be 4-1, 3-1 and 3-0 (BBC, ITV,Sky).

The only exception is when unions strike against a Labour council (Tories
when in office), when the score may be as high as 3-5.

As for press releases, they very rarely tell the truth, never the whole
truth, and rarely 'nothing but the truth'. Believe them at your peril. And
no-one reading the Daily Mail can seriously expect to get more than one side
to *any* story. It just doesn't happen.

In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who cares
when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?
--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

Andrew Heenan wrote:
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.

Wrong on several counts.

For example, when a similiar incident happened on the Piccadilly about 20
years ago, every train was modified to ensure it didn't happen again; no
fuss, no bother, no strike. Just fixed.

Also, history shows that where unions are concerned, they simply do not get
a fair hearing. In most strikes, all we get to hear is the management side,
and a pontificating journalist who usually takes the management side.

And I'm not making it up; this is normal press, tv and BBC behaviour, and
it's been well documented in published papers.

Next time you see a strike reported, time the management side, and time the
union side - the score is usually about 4-0 on the BBC, 3-0 on ITV and
something like 5 - -4 (dissenting union side voice/carefully selected vox
pop) on Sky.

Surely four times longer than nothing is exactly the same as three times
longer than nothing, and suggests all are given equal time anyway...?

On a good day it'll be 4-1, 3-1 and 3-0 (BBC, ITV,Sky).

The only exception is when unions strike against a Labour council (Tories
when in office), when the score may be as high as 3-5.

As for press releases, they very rarely tell the truth, never the whole
truth, and rarely 'nothing but the truth'. Believe them at your peril.

But it is all us members of the public have to go on from the horses'
mouths. The "management" often put their side on websites etc (maybe
they contact the BBC, ITV and Sky as well). The "union" side often
doesn't, or if it does it is an unconvincing mix of shroud-waving and
Dave Spart.

And
no-one reading the Daily Mail can seriously expect to get more than one side
to *any* story. It just doesn't happen.

In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who cares
when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?

Why should anyone expect the Daily Mail (or whatever) do the unions'
public relations work for them?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message


In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who
cares when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?

But surely, in this case, the union is striking in defence of a member
who compromised safety, first by making a dangerous mistake, and then by
not taking the prescribed recovery action. So, presumably, the union is
*against* passenger safety if that comes before an unsafe member's job?
Perhaps Brother Crow should be prosecuted on 'elf 'n safety grounds?

On Sat, 23 May 2009, Andrew Heenan wrote:

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.

Wrong on several counts.

For example, when a similiar incident happened on the Piccadilly about 20
years ago, every train was modified to ensure it didn't happen again; no
fuss, no bother, no strike. Just fixed.

Also, history shows that where unions are concerned, they simply do not get
a fair hearing. In most strikes, all we get to hear is the management side,
and a pontificating journalist who usually takes the management side.

And I'm not making it up; this is normal press, tv and BBC behaviour, and
it's been well documented in published papers.

Next time you see a strike reported, time the management side, and time the
union side - the score is usually about 4-0 on the BBC, 3-0 on ITV and
something like 5 - -4 (dissenting union side voice/carefully selected vox
pop) on Sky.

On a good day it'll be 4-1, 3-1 and 3-0 (BBC, ITV,Sky).

The only exception is when unions strike against a Labour council (Tories
when in office), when the score may be as high as 3-5.

As for press releases, they very rarely tell the truth, never the whole
truth, and rarely 'nothing but the truth'. Believe them at your peril. And
no-one reading the Daily Mail can seriously expect to get more than one side
to *any* story. It just doesn't happen.

In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who cares
when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?

Nice story.

So do you dispute the assertion that it would take longer to fit CSDE to
the existing trains than it will take for the new trains to come into
service? And if not, do you dispute that this makes the RMT's demands
absolutely nonsensical?

tom

--
Outnumbered but never outgunned.

Andrew Heenan wrote on 23 May 2009 17:36:51 ...
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.

Wrong on several counts.

For example, when a similiar incident happened on the Piccadilly about 20
years ago, every train was modified to ensure it didn't happen again; no
fuss, no bother, no strike. Just fixed.

20 years ago, the 73 stock was 16 years old. How long did it take to
fit CSDE to all 80-odd trains?
It would only be relevant to the present issue if it could be designed
and fitted much earlier than the introduction of the new Victoria stock,
which I doubt is practicable.

Also, history shows that where unions are concerned, they simply do not get
a fair hearing. In most strikes, all we get to hear is the management side,
and a pontificating journalist who usually takes the management side.

So where is the RMT press release that explains their position in a
credible way? I haven't seen it yet on their own website, so how do you
expect the media to give them a "fair hearing"?

[snip]
In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who cares
when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?

I care very much about safety, which is why I'm very concerned that, as
far as I can tell, the safety procedures weren't followed after the
driver made his mistake. If the union thinks his sacking was unfair, why
haven't they taken LU to an industrial tribunal? Instead they choose to
attack the passengers, so don't blame me if I appear to be attacking them.

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

Mr Thant wrote:
On 22 May, 13:54, wrote:
It does seem a bit harsh firing him if he did eventually report it. I'd have
thought a written warning would have been enough. Unless of course he never
reported it or he'd had a lot of "incidents" before.

The procedure is to do a thorough check of the train before moving off
(possibly with the help of other staff). He assumed there was no need
(apparently after trying and failing to contact control) and carried
on. Anyone who, unsure what to do, errs on the side of not following
the safety procedure (quite possibly in an attempt to cover up his
mistake) has no business driving trains.

LU Rule Book 7 Section 14 is rather more detailed than that, though
there doesn't seem to be an equivalent in the GE/RT8000 Rule Book series
for the mainline railways.

Cheers,

Barry

"Tom Anderson" wrote ...
Nice story.

true story, actually.

So do you dispute the assertion that it would take longer to fit CSDE to
the existing trains than it will take for the new trains to come into
service? And if not, do you dispute that this makes the RMT's demands
absolutely nonsensical?

I don't know; neither do you. There's so much spin around the costs and time
frames of fixing problem trains, that no-one outside the service can
possibly tell where the truth lies.

Recall, for example, the problems with SWT's 458 units; we were told that
the visual display was a few mm too small, that the door control buttons
were a cm or two out (both disability access issues), and fixing it would
cost £140,000* per car, and so would never get done on cost grounds, thereby
removing them from service. After the ritual brinkmanship, an engineer with
a brain was located, and a system was devised and fitted at a fraction of
the stated cost, and in a timely manner.

If I had the facts of this new drama, I'd happily give a view - but there's
so many lies, half truths and plain old fashioned smoke, that neither you
nor I could even guess. Time will tell, I guess; hopefully before some poor
sod falls out of a train.

*That figure may be way out; it was a long time ago - but whatever it was,
it was ludicrous.


--

Andrew

On May 24, 11:40*am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote ...

Nice story.

true story, actually.

So do you dispute the assertion that it would take longer to fit CSDE to
the existing trains than it will take for the new trains to come into
service? And if not, do you dispute that this makes the RMT's demands
absolutely nonsensical?

I don't know; neither do you. There's so much spin around the costs and time
frames of fixing problem trains, that no-one outside the service can
possibly tell where the truth lies.

Recall, for example, the problems with SWT's 458 units; we were told that
the visual display was a few mm too small, that the door control buttons
were a cm or two out (both disability access issues), and fixing it would
cost £140,000* per car, and so would never get done on cost grounds, thereby
removing them from service. After the ritual brinkmanship, an engineer with
a brain was located, and a system was devised and fitted at a fraction of
the stated cost, and in a timely manner.

If I had the facts of this new drama, I'd happily give a view - but there's
so many lies, half truths and plain old fashioned smoke, that neither you
nor I could even guess. Time will tell, I guess; hopefully before some poor
sod falls out of a train.

They've been running under the current setup *for 40 years*, for
****'s sake.

It's not a H&S issue, it's a willy-waving issue (and management is
doubtless being at least as daft as the union about the whole case -
the sensible approach would be to say 'meh, **** happens, anyone who
walks out of the wrong side of the train was a ****wit anyway, slap on
the wrists and brief telling-off for drivers who make the mistake').

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