IS this another BBC foul up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7864315.stm @ 11:08 saying
W&C suspended, but the TfL site says good service.

W&C is one of the few lines I would have thought would be almost
completely unaffected by snow - unless the drivers couldn't get there!

Sid

wrote in message
...
IS this another BBC foul up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7864315.stm @ 11:08 saying
W&C suspended, but the TfL site says good service.

W&C is one of the few lines I would have thought would be almost
completely unaffected by snow - unless the drivers couldn't get there!

Sid

Wrong kind of tunnel!

MaxB

wrote in message
...
IS this another BBC foul up.

No, it's what TfL were reporting.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7864315.stm @ 11:08 saying
W&C suspended, but the TfL site says good service.

It does now, but wasn't earlier.

W&C is one of the few lines I would have thought would be almost
completely unaffected by snow - unless the drivers couldn't get there!

I assumed that was the reason.

In message
,
writes

IS this another BBC foul up.

I don't think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7864315.stm @ 11:08 saying
W&C suspended, but the TfL site says good service.

It was suspended until after 10am. I don't think the BBC news page
should be regarded as a live travel update service in the way that the
TfL offers.

W&C is one of the few lines I would have thought would be almost
completely unaffected by snow - unless the drivers couldn't get there!

I should think that's why it didn't start until after 10am.
--
Paul Terry

On 2 Feb, 11:20, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
,
writes

IS this another BBC foul up.

I don't think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7864315.stm@ 11:08 saying
W&C suspended, but the TfL site says good service.

It was suspended until after 10am. I don't think the BBC news page
should be regarded as a live travel update service in the way that the
TfL offers.

W&C is one of the few lines I would have thought would be almost
completely unaffected by snow - unless the drivers couldn't get there!

I should think that's why it didn't start until after 10am.


Well you are quite right, I too would not regard a BBC news page as a
live travel update service, but of all the lines, they chose to
mention the W&C. It just struck me as odd.

Could the W&C be relatively easily and cheaply automated? I'm sure
drivers don't find it the most inspiring of routes.

Cheers,

Sid

wrote:

Could the W&C be relatively easily and cheaply automated? I'm sure
drivers don't find it the most inspiring of routes.

I asked the W&C line manager (or some similar-ish title) about this at a
function at the Covent Garden museum. Apparently, as things stand there
would need to be a member of staff on board every service. It was felt
that this requirement for a member of staff wasn't going to go away any
time soon, and seeing as they have to be there, they may as well drive
the trains.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , Arthur
Figgis writes

wrote:

Could the W&C be relatively easily and cheaply automated? I'm sure
drivers don't find it the most inspiring of routes.

I asked the W&C line manager (or some similar-ish title) about this at
a function at the Covent Garden museum. Apparently, as things stand
there would need to be a member of staff on board every service. It was
felt that this requirement for a member of staff wasn't going to go
away any time soon, and seeing as they have to be there, they may as
well drive the trains.

So a *driver* was the cheapest option?
--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Arthur
Figgis writes

wrote:

Could the W&C be relatively easily and cheaply automated? I'm sure
drivers don't find it the most inspiring of routes.

I asked the W&C line manager (or some similar-ish title) about this at
a function at the Covent Garden museum. Apparently, as things stand
there would need to be a member of staff on board every service. It
was felt that this requirement for a member of staff wasn't going to
go away any time soon, and seeing as they have to be there, they may
as well drive the trains.

So a *driver* was the cheapest option?

Presumably the question was which was cheaper out of *driver* vs
*automation+'guard'*. Riding back and forth all day while not driving
could be even more boring than driving, though the wage bill could be
cheaper(?).

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
et...
wrote:

Could the W&C be relatively easily and cheaply automated? I'm sure
drivers don't find it the most inspiring of routes.

I asked the W&C line manager (or some similar-ish title) about this at a
function at the Covent Garden museum. Apparently, as things stand there
would need to be a member of staff on board every service. It was felt
that this requirement for a member of staff wasn't going to go away any
time soon, and seeing as they have to be there, they may as well drive the
trains.

Does anyone know why they have to have someone on the train?

There certainly isn't anyone on the Copenhagen metro, nor (to return to the
UK) the stupid little Stansted airport shuttle.

tim

On 2 Feb, 23:51, "tim....." wrote:
Could the W&C be relatively easily and cheaply automated? I'm sure
drivers don't find it the most inspiring of routes.
Does anyone know why they have to have someone on the train?
What happens if it breaks down while its under the thames?