Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 23:56:14 GMT
Reported on BBC NewsI know that it can be difficult for people to comment because it is an open legal case... Is it a known issue about RSI on the 95/6 tube stock? I can't believe that employees haven't developed RSI/wrist damage in the past from any Underground stock! Lord Justice Smith said in a judgment that LU should not have introduced a new design for the safety device without taking advice from an expert.I'm glad PRJB has given assurances to the ergonomics of the S stock cab!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 1:28:12 GMT
 It seems to be fine for the hundreds of other operators! Seriously, I cannot see the point in dragging the company down with her in that unlucky circumstance. It's like applying to be a computer technician and complaining you get RSI from the mouse. Don't apply for the job then!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Feb 14, 2008 1:38:16 GMT
I went to the LT museum in Covent garden the other day with a friends daughter (and despite her initial protests, she thoroughly enjoyed herself!) - point is, all the tube simulators are now based on the 95/96ts CTBC; now whilst it obviously wasn't completely realistic, I think it gave enough of an example..............and FWIW, I don't think I'd fancy having to use that style for a full shift.
Perhaps I've got too used to the simple D stock version?..........
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 14, 2008 9:54:20 GMT
Surely this "new design for the safety device" was done for the 92ts? And I don't believe that it was generated by someone scribbling something on a bit of paper and faxing it to the manufacturer - I'm sure there was Darwin-knows-how-much paperwork and prototyping, checking the ergonomics etc - prjb has shown well how this is gone on the S stock threads. As Rob said, it's strange that it's only just come to light... The LTM CTBCs have a feature I hope isn't on the real thing, when testing they had a tendancy to jam with the deadmans handle on  . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 10:44:00 GMT
Having "driven" the 96 stock simulator I wouldn't fancy using it for a full shift either. I didn't feel like I could extend my arm properly - on a D stock I set up the seat so that in parallel my arm is out straight, which isn't possible when the handle is built into the seat. For that reason I was relieved to see the TBC fixed to the desk on the S stock.
However, not liking it is not the same as it actually causing injury!
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,104 
|
Post by Tom on Feb 14, 2008 16:44:25 GMT
It's like applying to be a computer technician and complaining you get RSI from the mouse. Don't apply for the job then! Whilst I don't know the ins and outs of the case I can offer some element of informed opinion. I had the same condition as the woman in question after spending five months as a Computer Aided Design Operator. It hurts. A lot. I had physio, occupational therapy (including three months in a splint) and I still take painkillers on a regular basis. Your comment suggest that you view such a scenario as the employee's fault and shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues. The employer is responsible for ensuring the Health and Safety of their employees. In my case (which I can't go into the full details of), the employer completely disregarded their responsibilities and had me working with minimal training (I learnt the program on the go) for far in excess of my contracted hours to achieve a politically motiviated and unrealistic deadline. As for assurances to the ergonomics of the S stock cab, if it is anything like what Bombardier produced for Stockholm I would suggest the assurances are probably not worth the paper they are written on, having a number of friends who developed RSI conditions from driving the S stock's older cousin. |
|
PGtrips
Ahh... don't you just love PG?
Posts: 113
|
Post by PGtrips on Feb 14, 2008 17:20:37 GMT
I went to the LT museum in Covent garden the other day with a friends daughter (and despite her initial protests, she thoroughly enjoyed herself!) - point is, all the tube simulators are now based on the 95/96ts CTBC; now whilst it obviously wasn't completely realistic, I think it gave enough of an example..............and FWIW, I don't think I'd fancy having to use that style for a full shift. Perhaps I've got too used to the simple D stock version?.......... I went there today with the kids it being half term for them and all. I don't think the CTBC on the Jubilee cab is very realistic at all in that it seems to be really heavy duty for museum abuse and also it has no physical 'clicks' for each position apart from the centre 'off' position. However, this appears to have got misaligned and is at about brake notch 2 so to coast you have to hold the handle in splendid isolation in mid air. So I hope the real ones are a lot better than that. On a more positive note, the BVE of the Jubilee is absolutely SUPERB and I can't wait for it to be released for me to try on the comfort of my own PC (which has no CTBC at all ;D ;D ;D)....but that should probably be a discussion for another thread on another board, so I'll shut up at this point... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 20:22:45 GMT
As a driver on the Northern line , i spent about 7 years on the 95 stock , and i can say that there were many times when i felt pain / discomfort operating the deadman. Also , in speaking with my fellow drivers in the mess room , it became apparent that most of them experienced the same pain/discomfort in their driving arm at some point , sometimes very frequently. I'm also aware of at least one instance of a driver being displaced to another line as a result of rsi.
I have also driven 59 stock , 72 stock and A60 with no problems. What i am trying to say is that there is a problem with the 95 stock ctbc in more ways than one , perhaps i better stop there - but the cbtc is seriously flawed in more ways than one. please don't inflict a similar handle on the s stock.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Feb 14, 2008 22:10:40 GMT
As for assurances to the ergonomics of the S stock cab, if it is anything like what Bombardier produced for Stockholm I would suggest the assurances are probably not worth the paper they are written on, having a number of friends who developed RSI conditions from driving the S stock's older cousin. The assurance process for 'S' Stock is extremely rigorous and as I have said before, MRSSL employed the leading cab ergonomic's expert in the country to get the cab design in order. The manufacturer of the 'S' Stock CTBC is experienced in manufacturing this type of equipment and have also had to produce their own assurance documents before it even got to BTUK, who then did their own assessments before it got to MRSSL, who then did their own assessments before it got to LU, who then did their own assessments too. So I would argue, quite strongly in fact, that the assurances are actually worth the paper they are written on! I am not arrogant enough to suggest that we are going to get everything 100% right with 'S' Stock but if we have a fundamental problem with the CTBC then we have all failed miserably. There will be two pre-series trains for testing before the main fleet begins it's build and if we find problems are arising in any part of the design we will fight to get them corrected (that is the primary purpose of trains 1 and 2). At the end of the day I am the User Acceptance Manager for the train and most of the LU guys on here know me (either through work or through this forum). If I get this wrong then I will be a hunted man, it is my intention not to let that happen. Incidentally, if I really do mess it up monumentally can I post The Tunnel Rats personal details and ask that you all pop round' his house rather than mine? No? Oh alright then!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 23:47:30 GMT
AFAICR, 95ts can only be turned from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock, that is, clockwise only...
|
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Feb 15, 2008 0:16:22 GMT
I found myself with serious shoulder pain some days after a shift driving the '96.... the D stock, and even C stock is much easier on the old joints.. that is only IMHO of course!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 0:48:26 GMT
I went there today with the kids it being half term for them and all. I don't think the CTBC on the Jubilee cab is very realistic at all in that it seems to be really heavy duty for museum abuse and also it has no physical 'clicks' for each position apart from the centre 'off' position. The simulator at Neasden depot also has no "clicks" apart from the off and release position, I believe that is the way they are in reality. It is a bit off-putting when you're used to definite positions as with the earlier stocks. As for S stock, just make the TBC the same as on the D stock! I've never had any problems with it, and I can't recall anyone else complain about it either. (Prepares to be proved wrong!) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 1:00:49 GMT
It's like applying to be a computer technician and complaining you get RSI from the mouse. Don't apply for the job then! Whilst I don't know the ins and outs of the case I can offer some element of informed opinion. I had the same condition as the woman in question after spending five months as a Computer Aided Design Operator. It hurts. A lot. I had physio, occupational therapy (including three months in a splint) and I still take painkillers on a regular basis. Your comment suggest that you view such a scenario as the employee's fault and shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues. The employer is responsible for ensuring the Health and Safety of their employees. In my case (which I can't go into the full details of), the employer completely disregarded their responsibilities and had me working with minimal training (I learnt the program on the go) for far in excess of my contracted hours to achieve a politically motiviated and unrealistic deadline. As for assurances to the ergonomics of the S stock cab, if it is anything like what Bombardier produced for Stockholm I would suggest the assurances are probably not worth the paper they are written on, having a number of friends who developed RSI conditions from driving the S stock's older cousin. Perhaps I came across a tad ignorant. My point is, it was very unlucky of the staff member to get RSI. I don't doubt it is hell to live with and a pain in the derrière. However, I cannot for the life in me see the logic in sueing LU. It's unfortunate, but let's be honest, in a job where you are sat down for periods of upto 2 hours sometimes, only making movements with your wrists perhaps you have to expect some problems? The damage has been done and in my eyes sueing LU will not help her problem in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Feb 15, 2008 7:25:17 GMT
Just put the CTBC on the right - please! Otherwise, no one will be convinced about using ergonomics "experts". Experts can be wrong.
P.S. I'm left handed.
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Feb 15, 2008 9:56:14 GMT
My experience of the 96TS CTBC is similar to ADW's.
It is 'notchless' - apart I think for a slight detent in the 'Off and Release' postion as we would think of it. I believe that this is because both the motors and brakes are supposed to be infinitely variable (a bit like a car throttle and brakes) rather than the fixed positions we are used to.
Personally I agree that it did not feel natural to use; I certainly wouldn't want to use it for a whole shift.
On a final point I *think* it could be picked up by turning either to the left or right; being used to the D Stock I instinctively turned it clockwise!
|
|
|
|
Post by auxsetreq on Feb 15, 2008 10:13:50 GMT
The TBC's on the 92/5/6 are not meant to be used that much as the trains are primarily designed for ATO - shunting to and from depots/sidings and ATO withdrawal /failure.
We were using the 92s TBC long before the advent of ATO. Turning to the left - anticlockwise doesn't put any strain on the wrist - In fact hardly any at all. It's an easy and comfortable way to drive and perfect for a whole shift. Turning to the right - clockwise, there's a psychological feeing that it's too easy to 'drop' - so one tends to hold it a little too hard, with the risk of causing strain. In fact it can be held with hardly any effort at all between your thumb and middle finger if turned to the right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 10:28:04 GMT
On a final point I *think* it could be picked up by turning either to the left or right; being used to the D Stock I instinctively turned it clockwise! I never thought to try turning it the other way! Like Dave, my D stock instincts took over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 16:19:35 GMT
I heard the 92 stock's lever can be turned anti clockwise or clockwise when I saw the waterloo and city DEV I first thought the driver was turning the handle thw wrong way round
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 17, 2008 19:35:22 GMT
At least the TBC on the 92TS were only used in manual driving mode for a short period before ATO/ATP became the norm on the line. I'm all against de-skilling drivers by introducing ATO but the design of modern TBCs on the 95/96TS seems to make ATO a blessing in disguise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 10:25:34 GMT
At least the TBC on the 92TS were only used in manual driving mode for a short period before ATO/ATP became the norm on the line. I'm all against de-skilling drivers by introducing ATO but the design of modern TBCs on the 95/96TS seems to make ATO a blessing in disguise. How short is a short period? When running with ATP only the trains operate in coded manual i.e. manually driven. I don't think ATO was in on the whole line until about 2001/02 (not sure, someone correct me if I'm wrong, it was after I came off the trains at the end of 2000 anyway). I do know people who have got RSI from driving the 92TS although having talked to a driver who transferred from the Central to the Jubilee (when North Greenwich opened) I got the impression that the 96s are slightly easier on the hand/arm. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 19, 2008 21:29:16 GMT
92 atock was introduced in 1993 - whole line became ATO in 2002.
9 years - not exactly a short period!
When the Northern goes ATO, it will have been 13 years since the stock was introduced!
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,104
|
Post by Tom on Feb 19, 2008 22:06:04 GMT
Perhaps I came across a tad ignorant. My point is, it was very unlucky of the staff member to get RSI. I don't doubt it is hell to live with and a pain in the derrière. However, I cannot for the life in me see the logic in sueing LU. It's unfortunate, but let's be honest, in a job where you are sat down for periods of upto 2 hours sometimes, only making movements with your wrists perhaps you have to expect some problems? The damage has been done and in my eyes sueing LU will not help her problem in the slightest. Sorry for the dalayed response as I've been out of the country. Suing LU may not help resolve the problem, i.e. the RSI condition. However, if the employer has put the employee at risk of developing such an injury and has not made attempts to train the individual, mitigate the risk etc then they have failed in their duty of care towards the employee. In addtion, if the employee is now medically unable to carry out what is a fairly well paid role because of the employer failing in their duty of care, it is only reasonable for the employee to sue for their consequential loss of earnings and the effect the condition has had on them. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 19, 2008 22:18:52 GMT
Slightly off topic, but I assume that Central line T/OPS are not allowed to drive in CM between White City and Leytonstone, unless instructed by the controller or if there is an ATO failure.
|
|
.
