On Feb 24, 2:19*am, john amber
wrote:
I have travelled on metro systems all over the world and none,
absolutely none, is anywhere near as utterly hopeless as London
Transport.

First of all, there is no such thing as London Transport, unless
you're somehow managing to post through a time-warp from before the
year 2000.

Assuming you mean London Underground, have you *commuted to work* on
metro systems all over the world? Until the answer's "yes", you can't
compare them. IMX Paris, Sydney and Melbourne are as bad as London
Underground for delays and general failures. Hong Kong is better.

It is almost beyond belief that any transport system can be run so
badly. And there is no shame. They just don't care. Customers are
treated with contempt.
Signals are forever failing. Why? They don't fail every day on other
systems.

Yes they do. I'd stake my life that *every* major commuter rail
network has at least one signal failure every day (which, as discussed
on other current threads, encompasses *all aspects of the signalling
system*, not just red and green lights).

If signals failed at Heathrow airport people would die and the
airport would close.

Not true. Again, signals *do* fail at LHR regularly, in the sense that
ATC computers go down, aeroplanes' transponders break, and so on. We
have very strict rules in place to minimise the chances that these
failures will compromise passenger safety - precisely as we do on
railways.

London Transport staff are overpaid ( 40k to drive a train for 4 and a
half days a week!)

Why not apply, if you think it's such an awesome and easy job?

and no one has any interest in providing a proper
service or looking after the customers who pay them. What other
organisation in the world performs so badly that they need to announce
incessantly over their public address systems every time they are
working as they should do?

Most public transport systems - or at least, those which actually
conduct research into what upsets and reassures passengers. LU's
communication policy is based on serious research into passenger and
group behaviour.

I think most passengers would put up with a few months without LT if it
meant that they could all be sacked and drivers replaced with automatic
driverless trains which work perfectly well on the DLR.

Close down *all of LU* for six months? How, precisely, do you
anticipate people will get to work (clue: the roads, mainline railways
and DLR are also all overloaded beyond capacity)? Or are you assuming
that businesses in London will close down for six months?

Even if that part of your scheme were viable:
1) the DLR was a purpose-built system designed with automatic train
operation from the start. LU isn't. It would be possible in theory to
convert the Central and Victoria lines as you suggest - for all the
other lines, it would require an enormous, multi-billion-pound
resignalling effort. Now, this is going to happen over the next 25
years - but not over the next six months.

2) DLR trains all have trained (sorry) operators on board. They get
paid GBP33k a year. So your scheme saves a grant total of GBP7k per
train operator. Woo!

We should not put up with it. LT is expensive, inefficient incompetently
run and a disgrace. It is a safe bet that they are already planning
strikes during the Olympics because they know they can and they know we
will all pay up.

I'm fairly sure London Underground isn't planning strikes during the
Olympics, except possibly planning on how to mitigate the effects of
any such strikes. It is possible that some of LU's employees have a
different attitude.

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