NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/01/18...ilders-of.html

London Underground shortlists builders of driverless trains
18th January 2016

LONDON Underground has issued invitations to tender for the next generation
of trains for the deep tubes, just two days since a door opened
unexpectedly on one of the trains which are to be replaced.

The proposed contract will provide new fleets for the Bakerloo, Central,
Piccadilly and Waterloo & City lines, which will all be suitable for
automatic operation.

Unions are calling for urgent action after the failure on Saturday, when a
door opened on a moving train near Heathrow Terminal 4 station. The RMT
said it had been drawing LUL's attention to various faults on the
Piccadilly Line's 1975 stock for the past year, but LUL has described the
incident as an 'isolated' one. Some drivers have since refused to work on
Piccadilly Line trains, and cancellations were reported on Sunday.

The 'New Tube for London' trains are set to be built by one of five
shortlisted bidders, who are Alstom, Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi and Siemens.

The contract will require 250 walk-through, air-cooled trains for the deep
tubes to be delivered in the early 2020s.

The Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: “Over the last few years we have
seen the completion of several major signalling upgrades on the Tube, as
well as the delivery of 191 brand new air-conditioned walk-through trains.
But it is clear that London must have continued investment in its Tube
network if it is to continue to flourish, and that is why I have argued so
hard to protect our capital investment programme. I am delighted that we
are now able to launch the process to commission a fleet of new deep-level
Tube trains that will transform journeys for the millions of passengers.�

London Underground managing director Nick Brown said: "Today’s invitation
to train manufacturers to submit bids for the design and build of the New
Tube is a significant step forward. Londoners have already seen huge
improvements to the Tube network, but to meet the needs of our rapidly
growing population we must continue to invest in and improve our services.
More people are using the Underground than at any point in its 153-year
history. The New Tube for London will transform the journeys of millions of
customers, providing trains fit for a world city for the next five
decades.�

London Underground said the new trains would feature 'attractive internal
styling that echoes the Underground's heritage,' and would also 'help to
support new jobs and growth elsewhere in the UK'.

Bidders will need to return their proposals to LU this summer, with the
contract due to be awarded in autumn next year. LUL's procurement programme
is running several years late, because new trains for the Piccadilly Line
were originally due to have entered service in 2014.

Ends

----------

So when might these trains enter service? Presumably 2022 or later. It's
a very big contract, much larger even than the S Stock or Thameslink, so
the bidders will fight hard to win it.

It's also interesting that the headline focuses on the driverless feature
of the trains, even though this may not be used initially. Maybe a
not-very-subtle reminder to the existing strike-prone drivers that their
days may be numbered?

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:53:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
It's also interesting that the headline focuses on the driverless feature
of the trains, even though this may not be used initially. Maybe a
not-very-subtle reminder to the existing strike-prone drivers that their
days may be numbered?

The drivers probably know there'll have to be someone on board and it doesn't
matter if they're at the front driving or wandering around like on the DLR.
They'll still be paid the same (or else) so I doubt they care.

Lets hope the actual trains are somewhat less butt ugly than the mock up
shown there.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:53:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
It's also interesting that the headline focuses on the driverless feature
of the trains, even though this may not be used initially. Maybe a
not-very-subtle reminder to the existing strike-prone drivers that their
days may be numbered?

The drivers probably know there'll have to be someone on board and it doesn't
matter if they're at the front driving or wandering around like on the DLR.
They'll still be paid the same (or else) so I doubt they care.

I think the DLR PSAs are paid significantly less than LU drivers.


Lets hope the actual trains are somewhat less butt ugly than the mock up
shown there.

Yes, the designers of that model were trying just a bit too hard to
incorporate the LU roundel into the front-end design.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:23:13 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:53:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
It's also interesting that the headline focuses on the driverless feature
of the trains, even though this may not be used initially. Maybe a
not-very-subtle reminder to the existing strike-prone drivers that their
days may be numbered?

The drivers probably know there'll have to be someone on board and it doesn't
matter if they're at the front driving or wandering around like on the DLR.
They'll still be paid the same (or else) so I doubt they care.

I think the DLR PSAs are paid significantly less than LU drivers.

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

--
jhk

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

So far the drivers haven't won with their Night Tube strikes (which are
presumably just disguised pay strikes).

Of course, the strikes will become even more effective if we get another
Labour mayor in May. Sadiq isn't a commie like Ken, but he's still unlikely
to stand up to the unions.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:52:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Of course, the strikes will become even more effective if we get another
Labour mayor in May. Sadiq isn't a commie like Ken, but he's still unlikely
to stand up to the unions.

Khan is a former human rights lawyer and was chairman of Liberty at one point
and spent a large amount of time bringing cases against the police so I
wouldn't **** on him if he was on fire and sitting in the only urinal.
Also his Ad Hominem attack on Zac Goldsmith a few weeks back shows his real
personality and style of politics.

If he's true to his type he'll be permanently opposed to anything the
government does regardless of merit but as you say will back down as soon as
the unions start flexing their muscle. Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a
non-entity so Khan has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 18:16:49 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:
A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

I agree about the lack of mobility of the rump of employees who aren't
C++ programmers, but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid
for their four day week.
--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Wages are rising much faster than prices, so the current tendency is for
the value of wages to be growing. And that's been true of Tube driver wages
for many years.


Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

Well, everyone probably feels they *need* more money, but Tube drivers are
very highly paid for their work.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:16:49 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:
A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

I agree about the lack of mobility of the rump of employees who aren't
C++ programmers, but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid
for their four day week.

Overpaid does not matter. Not only expenditure but committed expenditure
tend to increase with increasing income (for everybody). The only way
to reduce overpayment is with a long-term plan made up of very small
and carefully organised steps. Even then it might not work. In any case,
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016-01-19, Recliner wrote:
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried
to cut driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate
these trains. LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know
they always cave in the end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs
to be changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary
disputes then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Wages are rising much faster than prices, so the current tendency is for
the value of wages to be growing. And that's been true of Tube driver wages
for many years.


Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

Well, everyone probably feels they *need* more money, but Tube drivers are
very highly paid for their work.

See my response to Roland, especially the last bit.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:16:49 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:
A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

I agree about the lack of mobility of the rump of employees who aren't
C++ programmers, but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid
for their four day week.

Overpaid does not matter. Not only expenditure but committed expenditure
tend to increase with increasing income (for everybody). The only way
to reduce overpayment is with a long-term plan made up of very small
and carefully organised steps. Even then it might not work. In any case,
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

I'm curious about why recruitment to LU train operator posts is limited to
existing staff? If the job is so difficult and hard to fill, why not open
recruitment to anyone who's interested?

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:16:49 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to
cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these
trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in
the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to
be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might

It is if you're already grossly overpaid for the skills the job requires.
I don't think sitting on your arse pressing the doors open/close and go button
every 2 minutes merits 50K, do you?

still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Inflation briefly went negative last year so I'm not sure why you think they
deserve a pay rise.

Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

There are plenty of professions who need a payrise - nurses paid bog all,
met policemen who can't afford to live in london and so on. Tube drivers are
not amongst them.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 09:39:22 on Wed, 20
Jan 2016, Robin9 remarked:

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona:

Independently minded on account of his wealth, keen on Parliamentary
reform. Re-elected in 2015 with a stonkingly increased majority.

--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.
--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:10:25 +0100
Eric wrote:
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

Oh please. Even compared to driving a bus or a lorry I doubt the stress even
comes close, never mind other non transport related roles. How about they
try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis for less than those fat arsed drivers
get paid for pushing some buttons then letting the computer drive. What a
****ing joke.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at
A-level material.
--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016\01\20 09:42, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

Cameron won't lead the Tories into another GE, Pig-gate put paid to
that, so I don't think that's his motive.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:53:23 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\20 09:42, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

Cameron won't lead the Tories into another GE, Pig-gate put paid to
that, so I don't think that's his motive.

Cameron announced during the GE campaign that he'd step down before
the following GE, as he though that ten years was too long at the top.
So it's no secret that he'll go in around 2019, when he'll have done
nine years as PM, and Tory leader for 14 years.

Nothing to do with the later, unsourced, and almost certainly invented
tale in Ashcroft's revenge ("I donated so much money that I expected a
big job") book. Pig-gate was nothing to do with Cameron, and just
served to damage the reputations of the authors the book, Ashcroft and
Isabel Oakeshott.

The problem with the mayor's job is that it doesn't really lead
anywhere, so most of the heavy hitters don't want it. Boris had to
have his arm twisted to stand the first time, and as they were in
opposition at the time, he liked the idea of being the most important
elected Tory in the country.

Now they're in power, you wouldn't find any senior London Tory
ministers wanting to stand for the job. Also, London voters seem to
prefer maverick mayors anyway, which might help Zac once his campaign
actually gets underway (he's certainly had a slow start). I suppose
there might be the implied promise that he will be able to get more
investment from the government than a Labour mayor would, which is
more than likely true.

London also seems to elect mayors with a slightly racy side to them,
and Zac fits that bill better than boring family man Sadiq:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...0m-payout.html

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:39:34 +0000
Recliner wrote:
London also seems to elect mayors with a slightly racy side to them,
and Zac fits that bill better than boring family man Sadiq:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oldsmith-admit
-adultery-wife-divorces-days-Election--faces-100m-payout.html

Looking the the drop dead gorgeous wife and then the Ms Plain Jane mistress
you have to question the mans judgement somewhat. Or eyesight at least!

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016\01\20 13:57, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:39:34 +0000
Recliner wrote:
London also seems to elect mayors with a slightly racy side to them,
and Zac fits that bill better than boring family man Sadiq:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oldsmith-admit
-adultery-wife-divorces-days-Election--faces-100m-payout.html

Looking the the drop dead gorgeous wife and then the Ms Plain Jane mistress
you have to question the mans judgement somewhat. Or eyesight at least!

That's not very nice... hang on, she did cheat with a married man, so I
suppose we don't have to be nice to her... err.. let me see... oh yeah.
clears throat

"I always wondered what the clown balloon from the testcard was doing
these days"

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 16:46:56 on Wed, 20
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:
[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

I also observe the existence of closed shops, and the effect that has on
wages.
--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

Even better, open up recruitment to anyone who wants to apply, not just
existing staff. That way the market can decide whether the job is over or
underpaid, so we won't need to rely on opinion.

How many weeks training are needed to become an LU driver?

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:46:56 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

So other than getting up for early shifts occasionally (which many other
jobs require), fill us in on what is so taxing about the job of a tube driver
that justifies them being paid twice as much as a nurse or a bus driver or a
police constable. Obviously theres some incredibly intellectually or physically
demanding part of the job that we're just not aware of so please tell us what
it is.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-level
material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

tim

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither
is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him.

He was the best of the bunch.

Not unreasonably, the London electorate want a mayor who has some commitment
to London and parachuting in a high flyer from the shires is unlikely to be
more successful.

Which means that you have to select from those few London MPs who have no
immediate aspiration for ministerial post and/or some unknown (outside his
own front room) councillor.

They were lucky to get someone of even Mr Goldsmith's calibre to stand IMHO.

tim

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

Even better, open up recruitment to anyone who wants to apply, not just
existing staff. That way the market can decide whether the job is over or
underpaid, so we won't need to rely on opinion.

How many weeks training are needed to become an LU driver?


Dunno about Lt, but quote from SWT:

"Our train driver training is extremely comprehensive and strict, and lasts
for up to 18 months"

tim

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016\01\20 17:01, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:46:56 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

So other than getting up for early shifts occasionally (which many other
jobs require), fill us in on what is so taxing about the job of a tube driver
that justifies them being paid twice as much as a nurse or a bus driver or a
police constable. Obviously theres some incredibly intellectually or physically
demanding part of the job that we're just not aware of so please tell us what
it is.

Why don't you just google for the answers you got the last half dozen
times you asked that.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

tim..... wrote:

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither
is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him.

He was the best of the bunch.

Not unreasonably, the London electorate want a mayor who has some commitment
to London and parachuting in a high flyer from the shires is unlikely to be
more successful.

Which means that you have to select from those few London MPs who have no
immediate aspiration for ministerial post and/or some unknown (outside his
own front room) councillor.

They were lucky to get someone of even Mr Goldsmith's calibre to stand IMHO.

Yes, I agree.

BTW, Boris was the Henley MP when he was elected mayor, so though
preferable, it's not essential that a candidate be a London MP.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 20:04:56 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, tim..... remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-
level material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

Entry to medical training in the UK is highly competitive and greatly
(I've seen as much as 10x) oversubscribed.

politics Perhaps junior doctors need to remember the weren't forced to
study medicine /politics

Some require even more than AAA, for example Oxford:

"A-levels: A*AA, in three A-levels taken in one academic year
excluding Critical Thinking and General Studies. Candidates are
required to have Chemistry (compulsory), plus Biology and/or
Physics and/or Mathematics to full A-level."

Back in the day (early 70's) I had four A-levels in sciences; today
they'd be called A*AAC, but only three were taken the same year (one I
took the year after, having already confirmed a Uni place). Many
students went to Uni with two A-levels.

UCL's clinical medicine course entry averages 532 UCAS points (which is
halfway between A*A*AA and A*A*A*A).

My daughter is doing a related course at UCL which requires AAAA in
sciences, but that's OK because she has A*AAA. The biggest problem was
getting the school to agree to let her drop General Studies (which was
virtually compulsory), but simply a way to easily increase a school's
league table results - however clearly cuts no ice with the major
universities.

In retrospect, I don't think they had any argument with the A*AAA, not
including General Studies.
--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:29:45 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\20 17:01, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:46:56 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

So other than getting up for early shifts occasionally (which many other
jobs require), fill us in on what is so taxing about the job of a tube driver
that justifies them being paid twice as much as a nurse or a bus driver or a
police constable. Obviously theres some incredibly intellectually or
physically
demanding part of the job that we're just not aware of so please tell us what
it is.

Why don't you just google for the answers you got the last half dozen
times you asked that.

Why don't you butt out of a thread you have nothing to add to? FYI I have
googled on numerous occasions and I've yet to see ANYTHING which justifies
their grossly inflated salary. Though if you know otherwise feel free to
fill us in with your extensive knowledge on the subject.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:04:56 -0000
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-level
material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

If you're talking some 3rd world dump then no doubt, but one would hope most
if not all western nations do initial selection on candidates based on
intellectual ability.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:14:01 -0000
"tim....." wrote:
"Our train driver training is extremely comprehensive and strict, and lasts
for up to 18 months"

I suspect most of that is route learning. Learning to drive the train and
troubleshoot minor issues probably takes a week at most. I learnt to drive
an HGV and do all the checks in 4 days.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 20/01/2016 16:19, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid for their four
day week.

If only!

Which bit? The overpaid (compared to average wages then it could be
argued yes) or the 4 day week? If the latter:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3161856.html

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:26:27 +0000
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 20/01/2016 16:19, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid for their four
day week.

If only!

Which bit? The overpaid (compared to average wages then it could be
argued yes) or the 4 day week? If the latter:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...nd-four-day-wo
k-week-in-bid-to-avert-strikes-over-night-tube-a3161856.html

Who wouldn't need 3 days off after the exhusting job of pressing a couple of
buttons every 2 minutes.

--
Spud