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

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

Subject: Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

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

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 |

"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.

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

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

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.

"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

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.