I pay for this ?
 

On Jun 26, 7:24 pm, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:

So I'm thinking, why am I paying £33.20 a week to put up with this crap,
and why people keep voting for Ken, the guy who promised to transform
the Tube !!


One thing that I very much like about living in London is that, if you
end up late for more or less any kind of appointment for more or less
any reason, you can say "sorry, the Tube was rubbish" and get
sympathetic nods and no grudges held (obviously with the exception of
a few special one-off events such as exams, court appearances,
weddings, for which you just need to head off an hour early).

It would be far worse to live somewhere like Japan, where turning up
late for work is a sacking offence unless you have the signed suicide
note of the train company's CEO for running his train five minutes
late. So three cheers for successive central and local governments for
accidentally and incompetently striking a blow against the tyranny of
the clock!

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

I pay for this ?
 

On Jun 27, 11:18 am, John B wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:07 am, Kev wrote:

So why are there signal failures on the less than 10 years old Jubilee
Line extenstion or the less than 30 year old Jubilee Line or the less
than 50 years old Victoria Line. I thought it was all due to the aging
Victorian infrastructure. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame Metronet/
Tubelines for the **** that they inherited, even if they should have
known what they were letting themselves in for.

Scientifically speaking, when you're talking about complex
electromechanical systems like train signalling, 30 years and 50 years
is Pretty Damn Old.

I notice that you didn't mention the less than 10 year old Jubilee
Line extension. I accept that the Victoria Line signalling is probably
knackered I just wish that all concerned would stop going on how the
probelms are all due to the "Victorian" infrastructure. The DLR is
hardly Victorian and the signalling and all the trains have been
replaced since it was built.
I can't wait for the first signal failure on the new Westinghouse
system on the Victoria Line and on the new Thales system on the
Jubilee Line.

Kevin

I pay for this ?
 

On Jun 27, 2:43 pm, Kev wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:18 am, John B wrote: On Jun 27, 10:07 am, Kev wrote:

So why are there signal failures on the less than 10 years old Jubilee
Line extenstion or the less than 30 year old Jubilee Line or the less
than 50 years old Victoria Line. I thought it was all due to the aging
Victorian infrastructure. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame Metronet/
Tubelines for the **** that they inherited, even if they should have
known what they were letting themselves in for.

Scientifically speaking, when you're talking about complex
electromechanical systems like train signalling, 30 years and 50 years
is Pretty Damn Old.

I notice that you didn't mention the less than 10 year old Jubilee
Line extension. I accept that the Victoria Line signalling is probably
knackered I just wish that all concerned would stop going on how the
probelms are all due to the "Victorian" infrastructure. The DLR is
hardly Victorian and the signalling and all the trains have been
replaced since it was built.
I can't wait for the first signal failure on the new Westinghouse
system on the Victoria Line and on the new Thales system on the
Jubilee Line.

Kevin

But lots of the newer kit is bolted on to or "talks to" the Victorian
or kit from the 20's-60's!

There will be problems with the new stuff, as it won't be built to
last....

I pay for this ?
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Kev wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:18 am, John B wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:07 am, Kev wrote:

So why are there signal failures on the less than 10 years old Jubilee
Line extenstion or the less than 30 year old Jubilee Line or the less
than 50 years old Victoria Line.

Scientifically speaking, when you're talking about complex
electromechanical systems like train signalling, 30 years and 50 years
is Pretty Damn Old.

I notice that you didn't mention the less than 10 year old Jubilee Line
extension.

Oh, that's still being settled in!

tom

--
Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly
every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin

I pay for this ?
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Mike Hughes wrote:

In message , Movilla
writes

At Kings Cross the platform was totally full and we were going nowhere.
After much faffing (driver was telling people to get off, announcements
were indicating otherwise), we then overheard lines were stopped at
Circle, Hammersmith and City, Metropolitan and Victoria. Complete
chaos. I then heard Kings Cross was to close. I got above ground at
09:00 and paid £20 got get a black cab to Bank for the DLR

When all other forms of transport fail taxis keep people moving (well nearly
always). Yet we get no subsidy

Oh really? We're having that argument in another thread! :)

tom

--
Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly
every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin

I pay for this ?
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:57:47 +0100, "Movilla"
wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:18 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:

I could try to explain but I don't think that would help. It was a
particularly awful morning in terms of big signal problems so I'll say
sorry instead given that I work for LU.

That's the first and only apology from LU (ok, you're not a spokesman but
I'll accept it).

Thank you.

[snip tale of woe]
Buses were not an option.

They would have helped in part in getting you closer to where you were
heading.

I have only got stuck once in a number of years when trying to use my
alternative routes and it is much less stressful to be able to take a
firm decision to go to the stop to catch bus x to get to y.

You should have seen it outside Kings Cross. Try competing with about 500
other people trying to get where they're going. No amount of planning ahead
can prepare you for that.

I can imagine KX was awful but I would contend that making a move
quickly to make progress is still helpful. The other suggestion about
walking back a stop or station to avoid the immediate crowd is also
useful. For your information you could have taken a 205 to Mile End
direct and then changed for a frequent bus to Canary Wharf.

Alternatively a 17 bus would have taken you direct to London Bridge for
the Jubilee Line. Alternatively a Thameslink train might have got you to
London Bridge although I accept the peak frequency is not very good for
that link.

A 45 or 63 bus would take you to Southwark Station to catch the Jubilee
Line.

A 214 or 205 would get you to Moorgate which is but a short walk to Bank
for the DLR. The 205 also serves Aldgate which is a short walk to Tower
Gateway for other DLR services or else stay on to Whitechapel for the
East London Line to Canada Water and then the Jubilee Line.

P.S. I know the staff were under a lot of stress but I heard on various
occasions people saying "well, at least they could apologise and not just
shout at us".

I think part of the reason for this is that passengers are resistant to
obeying evacuation announcements. People don't want to head for the
exit for entirely understandable reasons and they therefore try not to.
It can mean the staff do need to shout to get the message across that
people *have* to leave the station. If the priority is to get people to
a place of safety then perhaps apologies come a little way down the
immediate list of priorities.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

I pay for this ?
 

On Jun 26, 9:51 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
There are
a lot of issues here and a hell of a lot of effort from people in LU and
Tube Lines to make the Northern Line work.

I know! I'm one of them! Operational staff also get frustrated by
trying to do a good job and being perpetually hampered by the
delapidated infrastructure we have to work with. Well I know I do. I
know that our job is to provide the best possible train service to the
travelling public, and on the Northern line a lot of the time it seems
we are operating on a wing and a prayer. I'm sure you have quite a
different perspective on it to me as I am more involved in day-to-day
keeping the railway running as best we can no matter what goes wrong,
while you (by the sounds of it) are more looking at how the Northern
line can be improved in the longer term.

Hannah

I pay for this ?
 

On Jun 27, 5:49 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Kev wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:18 am, John B wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:07 am, Kev wrote:

So why are there signal failures on the less than 10 years old Jubilee
Line extenstion or the less than 30 year old Jubilee Line or the less
than 50 years old Victoria Line.

Scientifically speaking, when you're talking about complex
electromechanical systems like train signalling, 30 years and 50 years
is Pretty Damn Old.

I notice that you didn't mention the less than 10 year old Jubilee Line
extension.

Oh, that's still being settled in!

tom



This reminds me of the early 1990s when slam-door suburban stock on
the South Eastern was replaced by class 465 "Networkers". The excuses
changed seamlessly from the trains being old to the trains being new.

I pay for this ?
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:06:33 -0700, wrote:

On Jun 26, 9:51 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
There are
a lot of issues here and a hell of a lot of effort from people in LU and
Tube Lines to make the Northern Line work.

I know! I'm one of them! Operational staff also get frustrated by
trying to do a good job and being perpetually hampered by the
delapidated infrastructure we have to work with. Well I know I do.

Yes I know but the point is that money is being spent to put this right.
The scale of the work means that it's a long job. This is better than it
was in the old days when the only thing we did was work out to cut our
investment budgets every year - BTDTGTTS.

I
know that our job is to provide the best possible train service to the
travelling public, and on the Northern line a lot of the time it seems
we are operating on a wing and a prayer. I'm sure you have quite a
different perspective on it to me as I am more involved in day-to-day
keeping the railway running as best we can no matter what goes wrong,
while you (by the sounds of it) are more looking at how the Northern
line can be improved in the longer term.

My team do their fair share of the day to day trouble shooting of faults
with the FRC and TLL engineers. We do a daily review of faults and
incidents and investigate what has gone wrong and why.

A lot of the contractual stuff is also day to day with people on the
trains team doing cab rides for speed restrictions or visiting site
after serious disruptions as well as operating all the data collection
and contractual processes that we have to do.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

I pay for this ?
 

On Jun 27, 7:59 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:


My team do their fair share of the day to day trouble shooting of faults
with the FRC and TLL engineers. We do a daily review of faults and
incidents and investigate what has gone wrong and why.

Do you do this independantly of operational managers who also
investigate incidents? Or do you work with/from what they find? Just
curious.


A lot of the contractual stuff is also day to day with people on the
trains team doing cab rides for speed restrictions or visiting site
after serious disruptions as well as operating all the data collection
and contractual processes that we have to do.

Fair point, I think to put it slightly more clearly, you are more
focussed on making sure things get fixed, whilst I am more focussed on
how to run the railway as best we can round whatever bit of it happens
to be broken at the moment. Just so you know where I'm coming from
here, I am a Service (Line) Controller on the Northern.

Hannah
--
Paul C

Admits to working for London Underground!