London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 11th 04, 05:10 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,577
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

The count of eighteen damaged trains was given on ITV news.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes



  #2   Report Post  
Old February 11th 04, 07:40 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,989
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

In message , John Rowland
writes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

The count of eighteen damaged trains was given on ITV news.


18 cars on three trains, perhaps?
--
Roland Perry
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 11th 04, 07:50 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2004
Posts: 42
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

Subject: Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

london local news -ITV- said 10 trains had to be taken out of service...?
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 11th 04, 07:54 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 166
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

John Rowland wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html


Which contains the following utterly unsurprising line:

Bobby Law, London Regional Organiser of the Rail Maritime and
Transport union blamed the "dangers" of the public private partnership
(PPP) and its "complex web" of sub-contractors.


Who would have guessed the RMT bod would say something like that?

--
James Farrar |
London, SE23 |
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 11th 04, 10:26 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 634
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...


"Proctor46" wrote in message
...
Subject: Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...


london local news -ITV- said 10 trains had to be taken out of service...?


As Farringdon sidings can only hold three trains of 'C' stock I would
suggest that 9 would be the correct figure, as each 'train' would be formed
of three two-car fixed-formation train sets, comprising one Driving Motor
and one Uncoupling Trailer, formed either DM+UT+DM+UT+UT+DM or
DM+UT+UT+DM+UT+DM.




  #6   Report Post  
Old February 11th 04, 11:40 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,989
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

In message , Jack Taylor
writes
As Farringdon sidings can only hold three trains of 'C' stock I would
suggest that 9 would be the correct figure, as each 'train' would be formed
of three two-car fixed-formation train sets, comprising one Driving Motor
and one Uncoupling Trailer, formed either DM+UT+DM+UT+UT+DM or
DM+UT+UT+DM+UT+DM.


Where does it say they were damaged coming out of the sidings? Surely
that would happened way before the rush hour.
--
Roland Perry
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 12th 04, 09:15 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,346
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

James Farrar wrote in message ...
John Rowland wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html


Which contains the following utterly unsurprising line:

Bobby Law, London Regional Organiser of the Rail Maritime and
Transport union blamed the "dangers" of the public private partnership
(PPP) and its "complex web" of sub-contractors.


Who would have guessed the RMT bod would say something like that?


Much as the unions irritate me with the insincere sanctamonious sermonising
that they regularly inflict upon us, in this case I think they're right.
They doesn't seem to have been any benefit to PPP (other than to the
treasury) and in fact things do seem to have got slightly worse. Just my
opinion anyway.

B2003
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 12th 04, 12:59 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 21
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

I think they're right.
They doesn't seem to have been any benefit to PPP (other than to the
treasury) and in fact things do seem to have got slightly worse. Just my
opinion anyway.

I to agree with you - wasn't it TOT yesterday that said they were going to
have another look at the "contracts" that had been made under PPP to see if
any of them were actually worth anything - (basically saying that it has
been a waste of time so far and the 2 yr "honeymoon period" was well past.




  #9   Report Post  
Old February 12th 04, 09:55 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

"Roger the cabin boy" wrote in
:

I think they're right.
They doesn't seem to have been any benefit to PPP (other than to the
treasury) and in fact things do seem to have got slightly worse. Just
my opinion anyway.

I to agree with you - wasn't it TOT yesterday that said they were
going to have another look at the "contracts" that had been made under
PPP to see if any of them were actually worth anything - (basically
saying that it has been a waste of time so far and the 2 yr "honeymoon
period" was well past.






In the case of Metronet SSL, the one year "honeymoon period" has not
even lapsed. I'll come out of the closet now and say that I do work for
the above mentioned company, albeit on the stations side. From what I
have heard from someone directly invovled, is that the work that was
being done was on behalf of a contractor of LUL.

woutster
  #10   Report Post  
Old February 12th 04, 10:53 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 21
Default Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

In the case of Metronet SSL, the one year "honeymoon period" has not
even lapsed. I'll come out of the closet now and say that I do work for
the above mentioned company, albeit on the stations side. From what I
have heard from someone directly invovled, is that the work that was
being done was on behalf of a contractor of LUL.

woutster


OK I stand corrected. I am sure I read it in yestrdays Evening Standard.
Still you know what they say - Todays newspaper - tomorrows chip paper.






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oyster Cards damaged by proximity door entry cards neill London Transport 5 March 24th 12 06:28 PM
Serious arcing at Farringdon Boltar London Transport 1 November 18th 05 09:10 AM
Farringdon Tickets Jim Brittin London Transport 2 August 31st 04 02:12 PM
We buy-back broken and damaged cell-phones of all brands. Thank you! London Transport 0 July 2nd 04 08:47 PM
Oyster cards damaged by mobile phones?? Steve London Transport 9 January 26th 04 04:03 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017