http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4575522.stm

Bob Crow is not impressed that trains carried on running while his members
were on strike. So he know intends to ballot members about a lack of safety
caused by his members previous strike. Whats that all about then? He must
be aware that on the real railway, unstaffed stations above ground are 10 a
penny, and nobody is seriously considering it a safety issue.

As for ticket office staff being redeployed perhaps he should think where
Oyster is leading.

Paul

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:11:50 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Scott"
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4575522.stm

Bob Crow is not impressed that trains carried on running while his members
were on strike. So he know intends to ballot members about a lack of safety
caused by his members previous strike. Whats that all about then? He must
be aware that on the real railway, unstaffed stations above ground are 10 a
penny, and nobody is seriously considering it a safety issue.

Who said logic ever came into this sort of argument?

Every operator, TOC or any other organisation where the RMT have members
are treated as unique cases where it suits the RMT so to do. Nothing
surprising in that - it's a basic negotiating tactic.

Something tells me that the RMT do not have the public on their side on
this particular argument. Striking on the first main day back to work is
also a particularly nasty cheap shot, rather like the New Year's Eve
attempt. I detect a sense of desperation in their tactics.

As for ticket office staff being redeployed perhaps he should think where
Oyster is leading.

I'm sure he has - that will be strike number 37,342.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Whats that all about then? He must
be aware that on the real railway, unstaffed stations above ground are 10 a
penny, and nobody is seriously considering it a safety issue.

One of the big differences is that underground stations are often,
um, underground.

This makes a big difference to the risks involved; they are reflected
in the 'section 12' regulations introduced after the Kings Cross fire.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Whats that all about then? He
must
be aware that on the real railway, unstaffed stations above ground are 10
a
penny, and nobody is seriously considering it a safety issue.

One of the big differences is that underground stations are often,
um, underground.

This makes a big difference to the risks involved; they are reflected
in the 'section 12' regulations introduced after the Kings Cross fire.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

Thats why my post said 'unstaffed stations above ground' ITYF...

Paul

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Whats that all about then? He must
be aware that on the real railway, unstaffed stations above ground are 10 a
penny, and nobody is seriously considering it a safety issue.

One of the big differences is that underground stations are often,
um, underground.

This makes a big difference to the risks involved; they are reflected
in the 'section 12' regulations introduced after the Kings Cross fire.


I thought the only stations that stayed open, unstaffed, were
underground!

In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Thats why my post said 'unstaffed stations above ground' ITYF...

So you did.

In which case I'd ask how many how many NR stations with a 30TPH service
are unstaffed...

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Thats why my post said 'unstaffed stations above ground' ITYF...

So you did.

In which case I'd ask how many how many NR stations with a 30TPH service
are unstaffed...

I thought LU were operating a 4TPH service through the night?