|
|
Post by ianvisits on Sept 25, 2009 11:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Sept 25, 2009 11:53:26 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 14:40:46 GMT
Taken from the article:
The RMT have a point about the service disruptions. The entire line is suspended for at least one day of two for most weekends at the moment, and yet seems to have at least minor delays for seemingly four days out of five. But, for us, the long suffering passengers/customers, we don't have the option of chucking our toys out of our prams when things go wrong on the line, do we?
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Sept 25, 2009 18:37:19 GMT
30 years ago line closures for engineering were virtually unheard of and weekend possessions denying traffic hours were few. What is different today? Health & Safety and the blame culture have really led to TfL/LU forgetting what public service should be and also forgetting how to get engineering done without decimating the services.
Commuters mostly have no choice but to suffer and the privilege of having to pay for it too. Those who would want to use the railway to enjoy leisure activities are seldom afforded the opportunity these days.
It is not the management that bear the fallout from inconvenienced and disconsolate travellers but the staff at the sharp end. I think the RMT have a point but of course calling strikes only worsens the effect of an already patchy timetable and upsets the potential travellers and commuters even more.
I have never understood why the RMT calls strikes when working to rule would maintain a service where a strike would not, not alienate the passengers as a strike does, but would highlight just how poor TfL/LUL have become at serving the needs of those who have to pay for it whether it runs or not!
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Sept 26, 2009 7:09:38 GMT
....... I have never understood why the RMT calls strikes when working to rule would maintain a service where a strike would not, not alienate the passengers as a strike does, but would highlight just how poor TfL/LUL have become at serving the needs of those who have to pay for it whether it runs or not! Working to rule wouldn't make any difference now since everyone does anyway with CCTV, Trackernet, OTMR and voice recording. It's one of the reasons why the train service frequency has dropped so much. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Sept 26, 2009 10:51:03 GMT
Working to rule wouldn't make any difference now since everyone does anyway with CCTV, Trackernet, OTMR and voice recording. It's one of the reasons why the train service frequency has dropped so much. I am inclined to agree and think that proves the point, though I think an official work to rule would still make some difference and of course it wouldn't hit the workforce in the pocket in the same way as a strike either. In all honesty nobody wins in strike led disputes which is perhaps why so many staff left the RMT years ago when it became far too militant and why so many more ignored strike calls. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 26, 2009 11:11:07 GMT
....... I have never understood why the RMT calls strikes when working to rule would maintain a service where a strike would not, not alienate the passengers as a strike does, but would highlight just how poor TfL/LUL have become at serving the needs of those who have to pay for it whether it runs or not! Working to rule wouldn't make any difference now since everyone does anyway with CCTV, Trackernet, OTMR and voice recording. It's one of the reasons why the train service frequency has dropped so much. Except maybe in this case, as if the drivers refused to take the fifth round trip, it would make a difference. Not exactly working to rule, but working to the agreement which they claim to have. |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Sept 26, 2009 13:00:11 GMT
What's the betting the forthcoming T-Cup Circle Line, and associated duty sheet changes, throw up a similar dispute?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 26, 2009 13:12:01 GMT
....... I have never understood why the RMT calls strikes when working to rule would maintain a service where a strike would not, not alienate the passengers as a strike does, but would highlight just how poor TfL/LUL have become at serving the needs of those who have to pay for it whether it runs or not! Working to rule wouldn't make any difference now since everyone does anyway with CCTV, Trackernet, OTMR and voice recording. It's one of the reasons why the train service frequency has dropped so much. Yep. "Wait for all four home signals to clear before you move, then you won't have a SPAD" "Don't leave the station until you see that signal 700 yards away clear, then you won't risk SPAD-ing it" "Pass all repeaters at no more than 15mph". I've seen all these tought to new Train Operators; apart from the damage it causes to the train service, if these "techniques" are so important to avoid a potential SPAD, what about the SPAD risk being created to the train behind? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 13:33:10 GMT
What's the betting the forthcoming T-Cup Circle Line, and associated duty sheet changes, throw up a similar dispute? With all those trips to Hammersmith, they'll be doing less than the 6 circles agreement as now. |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Sept 26, 2009 14:40:21 GMT
What's the betting the forthcoming T-Cup Circle Line, and associated duty sheet changes, throw up a similar dispute? With all those trips to Hammersmith, they'll be doing less than the 6 circles agreement as now. Yes, much more handle-turning time possible. Obviously this discussion has moved off-topic now (my fault!) and I suppose there should be a separate non-Line themed thread on the subject of new depots and the issues raised by same. High Barnet will be the next on the list. |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Sept 26, 2009 14:45:49 GMT
Working to rule wouldn't make any difference now since everyone does anyway with CCTV, Trackernet, OTMR and voice recording. It's one of the reasons why the train service frequency has dropped so much. Yep. "Wait for all four home signals to clear before you move, then you won't have a SPAD" "Don't leave the station until you see that signal 700 yards away clear, then you won't risk SPAD-ing it" "Pass all repeaters at no more than 15mph". I've seen all these tought to new Train Operators; apart from the damage it causes to the train service, if these "techniques" are so important to avoid a potential SPAD, what about the SPAD risk being created to the train behind? A friend of mine at Golders was appalled to hear one of his colleagues opening admit that she never drove at full speed in case of a Spad, never pulled up to certain signals to allow line/junction clearance behind for the same reason. The fact that he pointed out she was increasing the Spad risk to other T/Ops (i.e. by causing signals behind her train to clear more slowly, or stay on, when 99% of the time they'd have gone green) was something completely beyond her comprehension. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Sept 27, 2009 9:28:46 GMT
Admin:Thread drift noted. The suggestion to start a new thread in 'LU general' is a good one since there are points to be made and folks might miss it due to the (now) misleading thread title. If one of you starts a new thread, anyone who's posted feel free to copy and paste your (relevant) posts there: we'll not worry about post duplication in this case  .
|
|
