Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2009 13:07:06 GMT
How did they find out in the first place that something had happened? I wondered that ! I assume when the Controller did eventually answer he then told them! Again, if the facts are as stated, i would have thought it was only a "wrong side door opening" on a technicality. The doors can open on a train about an inch or so anyway. You will get a momentary loss of pilot light (doors closed visual) and the outside door indicator light will illuminate, if the train operator is not motoring he/she will probably be unaware it even occurred. The effect in this instance is the same, but in that case is not worthy of report nor does it have any safety consequence. Either way, i suppose correct procedure has not been followed, but the circumstances are such that there was no safety issue with the steps taken. Perhaps there are other "issues" with this driver resulting in a tough managerial line? One would anticipate that he will in any event take this to an Industrial Tribunal in legal proceedings for Unfair Dismissal, they will take an independant view on events.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2009 13:13:55 GMT
I agree, that the procedure was not carried out 100% correctly, although the rule books do not really tell you what to do anyway, they just give an outline of what is expected. My feeling in all of this, sure he didn't follow it fully, but is it worth being sacked for when other people do the same and worse and then just get dipped to an SA position. Now remember this is my own opinion and not one based on facts, but with TfL/LUL needing to make some cut backs, and with Seven Sisters Depot being over staffed, this looks like a quick way for them to hit their targets of saving money!
|
|
|
Post by upfast on May 21, 2009 14:05:29 GMT
On the Beeb's site there is this comment from LU: "The reason LU has an excellent safety record is because of our strict procedures. It is LU, not the RMT, that is defending the safety of passengers and staff." Hang on, the procedures are implimented by LU staff. Now I agree that what this Train Operator is alleged to have done was not 100% to the ambiguous rule book but LU now have a procdure where if a train's pilot light is lost between stations it can carry on, even though a door may well be open! Then there's leaving 450 passengers between stations in tunnels for two hours - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7230245.stm
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on May 21, 2009 14:15:13 GMT
I agree, that the procedure was not carried out 100% correctly, although the rule books do not really tell you what to do anyway, they just give an outline of what is expected. My feeling in all of this, sure he didn't follow it fully, but is it worth being sacked for when other people do the same and worse and then just get dipped to an SA position. Now remember this is my own opinion and not one based on facts, but with TfL/LUL needing to make some cut backs, and with Seven Sisters Depot being over staffed, this looks like a quick way for them to hit their targets of saving money! Rule book 7, section 14 seems clear enough to me. As for Seven Sisters being overstaffed and claiming LU are using this incident as a means to reduce numbers, now we're starting to get silly. I'm sure anyone at Leytonstone would confirm that their excess staffing issues are of bigger concern at the moment - and surely the opening of Brixton depot should ease things somewhat? In any case, removing one driver will hardly make any difference to a staffing numbers issue. The fact is (as stated on the previous page of this thread) the driver concerned made a mistake. He then failed to carry out the correct procedure and failed to admit to his error upon investigation. As all LU staff know, it's one thing to make a mistake but it's what you do after that counts. I'll support any of my colleagues, but that's a bit difficult when they've made a rod for their own back as in this incidence.
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on May 21, 2009 15:33:23 GMT
What's all this about Glenroy?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on May 21, 2009 15:44:11 GMT
In any case, removing one driver will hardly make any difference to a staffing numbers issue. Disagree! You can't get rid of all the excess in one go - but you CAN get rid of 'em one at a time. That's exactly what Stagecoach are doing down West, so why not LU?
|
|
|
Post by upfast on May 21, 2009 16:00:32 GMT
In any case, removing one driver will hardly make any difference to a staffing numbers issue. Disagree! You can't get rid of all the excess in one go - but you CAN get rid of 'em one at a time. That's exactly what Stagecoach are doing down West, so why not LU? And it helps if you start with the Reps!
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on May 21, 2009 17:21:26 GMT
Perhaps there are other "issues" with this driver resulting in a tough managerial line? I think this is of importance, too. Something which (for a driver with an unblemished record) would result in a warning (say), might have different consequences were such an error to have been made before. But I do think that none of us can know fully what's happened - we're not party to the full facts - so it's silly for us to make judgments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2009 18:37:00 GMT
As for Seven Sisters being overstaffed and claiming LU are using this incident as a means to reduce numbers, now we're starting to get silly. I'm sure anyone at Leytonstone would confirm that their excess staffing issues are of bigger concern at the moment - and surely the opening of Brixton depot should ease things somewhat? I wonder if the reference to Seven Sisters being overstaffed is a reference to the fact the opening of Brixton will see a reallocation of 50% of the work to that depot along with 50% of the drivers .... however I gather of that 50%, only 25% of the staff have volunteered to go there and a further 25% are likely to be forceably redeployed there (those with the least seniority). I presume for every driver volunteering to go to Brixton from another line, this will leave one surplus driver at Seven Sisters above the then required compliment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2009 22:01:05 GMT
Where did you get 25% of staff volunteered from? lol There was 10 people who volunteered, and then 4 have retracted their request to go after seeing the shifts there. People from other lines who have requested to go there have been placed into a waiting list and drivers from SS are being forced across.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2009 23:50:19 GMT
Where did you get 25% of staff volunteered from? lol There was 10 people who volunteered, and then 4 have retracted their request to go after seeing the shifts there. People from other lines who have requested to go there have been placed into a waiting list and drivers from SS are being forced across. That's interesting ! I was always rather bemused as to who thought having a Brixton crew depot was a good idea in the first place! Two trains start there in the morning (crewed by night turns) and two drivers commence the stepping back process (i presume still travel passenger from Seven Sisters). Two drivers stable there at night (same two night drivers) and two drivers finish there when stepping back ends (then travel back to SS passenger.) Out of a complement of approx 280 drivers, at best the justification for Brixton is 8 workings !
|
|
|
Post by subwayrail on May 22, 2009 9:16:03 GMT
I was always rather bemused as to who thought having a Brixton crew depot was a good idea in the first place! I've been shouting and screaming the same question myself!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 22, 2009 10:41:19 GMT
Where did you get 25% of staff volunteered from? lol There was 10 people who volunteered, and then 4 have retracted their request to go after seeing the shifts there. People from other lines who have requested to go there have been placed into a waiting list and drivers from SS are being forced across. That's interesting ! I was always rather bemused as to who thought having a Brixton crew depot was a good idea in the first place! Two trains start there in the morning (crewed by night turns) and two drivers commence the stepping back process (i presume still travel passenger from Seven Sisters). Two drivers stable there at night (same two night drivers) and two drivers finish there when stepping back ends (then travel back to SS passenger.) Out of a complement of approx 280 drivers, at best the justification for Brixton is 8 workings ! Don't forget that S&SD have a theory that the "optimum" size for a crew depot is no more than 150 crews. It then becomes a case of what is the most convenient location operationally versus which locations have appropriate land / accommodation for a new depot. Gone are the days when a crew depot could be a couple of rooms on a platform somewhere (e.g. Golders Green), so now everything has to be a big & expensive project, like the new monstrosity currently under construction at High Barnet.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on May 22, 2009 12:42:57 GMT
Why is it that 'big' is progress?
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on May 22, 2009 17:00:43 GMT
I agree, that the procedure was not carried out 100% correctly, although the rule books do not really tell you what to do anyway, they just give an outline of what is expected. My feeling in all of this, sure he didn't follow it fully, but is it worth being sacked for when other people do the same and worse and then just get dipped to an SA position. Now remember this is my own opinion and not one based on facts, but with TfL/LUL needing to make some cut backs, and with Seven Sisters Depot being over staffed, this looks like a quick way for them to hit their targets of saving money! Rule book 7, section 14 seems clear enough to me. As for Seven Sisters being overstaffed and claiming LU are using this incident as a means to reduce numbers, now we're starting to get silly. I'm sure anyone at Leytonstone would confirm that their excess staffing issues are of bigger concern at the moment - and surely the opening of Brixton depot should ease things somewhat? In any case, removing one driver will hardly make any difference to a staffing numbers issue. The fact is (as stated on the previous page of this thread) the driver concerned made a mistake. He then failed to carry out the correct procedure and failed to admit to his error upon investigation. As all LU staff know, it's one thing to make a mistake but it's what you do after that counts. I'll support any of my colleagues, but that's a bit difficult when they've made a rod for their own back as in this incidence. Opening Brixton will not ease the overstaffing at Leytonstone. if the ex-ELL drivers were so keen to work in south London they would have opted for Elephant & Castle surely? By transferring en-masse to the same depot they've managed to deliver a measure of 'pay back' to the management who were still issuing bulletins claiming LU was well-placed to operate the ELL just 48 hours before TFL announced its privatisation...
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on May 22, 2009 17:32:50 GMT
You've mistaken what I wrote, 21146!!
I would admit I can see why you thought I was implying the excess drivers at Leytonstone could be moved to Brixton, but that's not what I meant at all! I was saying that if Seven Sisters thinks it has problems, it's not alone and there are other depots with equally pressing issues.
Where I mentioned Brixton, it was only meant in the context of Seven Sisters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2009 6:23:17 GMT
I must admit Colin, when I first read your post I misunderstood what you were implying too. The problem with the excess drivers at Leytonstone is a very emotive subject at the moment. Having being forced out of one depot then being forced out of another, you can understand why things are very tense at the moment. Only one driver went to the Elephant when the ELL closed. No one else wanted to go there because alot had already worked there and didn't want to go back. Alot of drivers were prepared to go to North Greenwich but were told that a year later they would be shipped to Stratford when it opened. So understandably they went to Leytonstone. As it turns out, North Greenwich was never going to close so the whole mess is down to the management.
|
|