|
Post by suncloud on Feb 25, 2015 17:52:31 GMT
In answer to the other part of the question, there's no easy diversion route. Otherwise they'd be using it! Basically any 'special' from London would have to bounce off coventry or birmingham...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 20, 2015 18:52:46 GMT
It could probably operate to Croydon (maybe east rather than west), as Thameslink services run to Gatwick overnight (although not current Sunday am). Whether it would be able to call at intermediate stops would be another matter.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 20, 2015 7:54:23 GMT
The rmt want the same kind of investment ad in the south? So moves towards driver less then? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 19, 2015 19:46:17 GMT
Development in lighting technology is moving very fast, especially in LED products. Manufacturers in my industry are having to limit newer brighter LED chipsets to match those they used when developing their products.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 17, 2015 14:30:10 GMT
D - Waterloo?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 17, 2015 14:27:39 GMT
2700K being close to typical colour temperature of filament lamps, and is favoured for the kind of lamps used in 'domestic' fittings. For some of the more 'commercial' lamp types getting colour temperature of 2700K can prove difficult. 'Cooler'/Bluer colour temps are better for workplaces. (Up to a point).
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 17, 2015 14:11:27 GMT
We though are not talking about a /criminal/ matter. Actually, we are. It's just that he didn't show a high enough reading to qualify for criminal proceedings. I concede matter is not the best word to have used, maybe 'case' would be appropriate. Obviously 'being unfit through drink' is a criminal offence. It seems to me there may not be a proscribed limit set out in the written legislation, but either through case law or just through policy it appears BTP use the drink-drive limits as their benchmark. The key point I am trying to make is that I believe the portable testers do give a fair indication of alcohol in breath & that I strongly doubt that the problem in this case is unlikely to be the physical equipment, which others have doubted. This is because I doubt the police would get away with using the same equipment to justify arrests on suspicion of drink-driving (or indeed the railway offence) if it was likely to give such an erroneous result. Arresting someone is not a mere 'inconvenience' or a trivial matter (of course, neither is losing your job) as you are denying that person their right to freedom/civil liberties, and regardless of the outcome, details of your arrest may remain on record. The debate on whether the drugs and alcohol testing policy of LU is fair, appropriate, clearly communicated and consistently applied (relating to this case or generally) is something that as someone who is not a Legal professional, LU staff member or (Rail) Union official, and not in full possession of the facts I can only share my perspective in a limited way. I support LU in dismissing someone who has breached an important rule of their workplace. I support employees (supported by their unions) in that they need to be protected from being dismissed without due cause. They also need (at all times) to be treated fairly, consistently, and in accordance with relevant/published/agreed legislation, contracts, policies and procedures. I recognise that there is potential for a situation where despite failures in the way a given dismissal has been handled, the reason for dismissal still applies and that it may be that reinstatement remains inappropriate but compensation for those failures made may be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 17, 2015 10:53:20 GMT
We though are not talking about a /criminal/ matter.
If roadside breathalysers used by the police were so unreliable / inaccurate to give a 30ug difference in reading to that which would be given by an 'evidential' machine then using that reading as grounds for arrest/detention would be dubious and probably be challenged. It wouldn't surprise me if the accuracy of the roadside machines now are virtually the same as evidential machines and the reasons for doing a test at the police station is more for procedural reasons than accuracy of readings. Remembering in criminal cases the police/CPS have to prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 17, 2015 9:22:03 GMT
Ok, the breathalyzer that aslefshrugged on his blog suggests is used for lu testing is one approved by the home office for use on roadside breath tests. I'm pretty sure the police'd soon be on pretty dodgy ground arresting (let alone charging) people for drink driving based on a machine that is likely to give such a significant false positive as is being suggested in this thread. (As in a reading of around thirty when the tested party has no alcohol from drinking in their system).
If the test results are as reported I have no qualms about saying this driver should not be at the front of a train carrying up to a thousand people with that much alcohol in their system.
If as reported he has followed the guidelines on drinking and the high reading is due to medical reasons, that were not previously identified, then I believe there's a stronger case for reinstatement. (Subject to systems being in place to ensure that his alcohol level continues to be managed in light of the discovery of a medical reason.)
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 13, 2015 19:30:46 GMT
They'd be useful all over Stratford... Stratford must be one of the main locations where people move from NR to Oyster ticketing outside of the main London termini (which would typically require passing through at least one if not two gatelines). Clapham Junction and maybe Watford Junction are the only two comparable locations in my mind...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 13, 2015 19:25:13 GMT
Disclaimer - Not a legal expert.
The procedures used by the police in drink driving cases are so strict (i.e. taking multiple tests and margins of error) is that they have to prove guilt 'beyond reasonbale doubt' whereas in civil cases/tribunals the level of proof of 'guilt' required may not be as high...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 13, 2015 19:01:13 GMT
Can't imagine it being a profitable location for a restaurant given the location is a bit out of the way once the station closes...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 13, 2015 12:48:32 GMT
- There is a large engineering project required for the viaduct at croxley. The large engineering projects (viaducts/tunnels) are already in place in the borders. - The borders line will operate diesel trains, Croxley requires much more electrical infrastructure for its fourth rail. - Signalling is probably much simpler. And will be standardised with the existing railway it is joining up to. (Not case with Underground and Overground signalling) - There are more stations on the borders line, but the difference isn't that great. - The croxley link work has to be carried out with due regard to affecting two busy rail lines. - Croxley will i assume be double track throughout, Borders is mostly single. - Land costs will be lower in scotland than watford.
There's a few ideas for you arun...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 13, 2015 12:13:07 GMT
...[if] those policies/procedures are not appropriate, then regardless of the 'guilt' of the driver it would be appropriate for the unions to challenge that situation. If the procedure was not appropriate I would like to think that the unions would have challenged it at introduction! Of course... I strongly doubt TfL as a large employer would fail to have a clear, fair and appropriate policy in place for such a critical matter... And Colin's post indicates he's in little doubt of the expectations.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 13, 2015 11:48:15 GMT
It is a serious matter for an employee to be dismissed and to lose their income and reputation. It is important that fair policies and procedures are in place and are followed correctly. These protect the employer and employee. I am not in a position to comment on the detail of this case, but if LU has breached it's policy / procedures, or those policies/procedures are not appropriate, then regardless of the 'guilt' of the driver it would be appropriate for the unions to challenge that situation.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 12, 2015 21:59:36 GMT
I use them when getting the train (then tube) to my parents. Unfortunately I have had a tendancy to forget to use them on the return and get charged minimum oyster fare...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 11, 2015 13:00:06 GMT
Elephant and castle? Although I can only see the castle bit... ;-)
Seriously going to try Pimlico..
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 10, 2015 19:59:48 GMT
Used Heathrow Express once, it was fine, and probably made the difference between making it back in time for work and not.. But normally I'd use the Picc...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 10, 2015 11:23:34 GMT
Is there a bus route related link?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 9, 2015 10:34:38 GMT
My other thought was Northumberland Park...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 9, 2015 10:09:46 GMT
I was going c for Tottenham court road and maybe b for barbican...
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 8, 2015 9:15:57 GMT
Edgware road (bakerloo)?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 7, 2015 10:26:47 GMT
Not really ;-)
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 6, 2015 22:16:00 GMT
Depot at poplar?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 4, 2015 0:53:23 GMT
It looks familiar, but I can't quite find it... Lets try Moorgate?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 3, 2015 20:58:04 GMT
So not signalling! Would it be something that initially presented as a track circuit issue?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Feb 3, 2015 11:34:47 GMT
Does that mean there was no service at all on the East End of the line? (It appears to be open now) The wording seems vague.
My best uneducated guess is that I wonder if signal/control communications was lost between Central Line Control and the east end of the line, as there is usually a fallback of running shuttle services between Epping/Woodford/Hainault and Leytonstone.
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Jan 31, 2015 15:19:04 GMT
Wandsworth Road is south of the river?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Jan 31, 2015 10:21:28 GMT
Blackfriars?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Oct 27, 2014 7:31:07 GMT
NR marked with the cross are valid for entry/exit at interchanges with London's rail termini (with a couple of extra stations). they should not be used as a travelcard, but as a single ticket between your incoming and outgoing stations. if an inspector were to stop you on an illogical route I expect you might have some explaining to do. you can of course still take a break of journey at either end of your lu journey if your NR ticketing permits
|
|