|
Post by drainrat on Dec 17, 2021 16:07:31 GMT
Before the covid 19 shutdown the Waterloo and City line needed 5 trains in service at peak times, so with only 4 trains available the timetable must be cut to suit this. Yes, it has been
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 17, 2021 16:03:50 GMT
The 5th train will be going through the CLIP process in Waterloo depot for the rest of the year at least, so full service will be some time yet. the CLIP βbayβ π€£
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 17, 2021 15:56:13 GMT
A TfL report from August 2020 that was leaked to ASLEF estimated the cost of driverless trains (GoA3), PEDs, etc. would be Β£7bn and like the DLR the member of staff onboard would need to be able to manually drive the train in emergency situations. The work would take years with some platforms having to be rebuilt to take the extra weight and we have East Acton as a fine example of how long that could take. Paris Metro Line 4 is currently being converted to driverless operation (GoA4), due to be complete next year after 5 years. That is being done with the co-operation of the drivers' union CGT, no redundancies, drivers displaced to other lines and if I understand correctly huge bonuses all round At the moment TfL can't afford a signals upgrade on the Piccadilly and the new 2024 stock will have to be fitted with tripcocks! The suggestion that the Tube will go driverless any time soon is utterly comical. they projected Β£25B back in 2018, which wouldβve been to GoA1, anything else still requires a capt or driver, and thatβs not what the baying crowds want
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 17, 2021 15:53:26 GMT
Confirmed by the ASLEF rep "flash-and-dash" starts today but only for trains going into 5 Road, if its going into the other two roads or into the depot we close up on the porter buttons. And if there's a "carry over" its management's problem not ours, we were simply following their instructions. Yes. the onsite DRM will take complete responsibility regarding any overcarries. Fairy Nuff. except when the DRM gets the driver to deal with it, which happened this week. If the passenger(s) stays put then all we need to carry them back over a shunt signal to Departures is authority from the service control manager although we might need the DRM to travel in the car with them to ensure they don't try to go through the interconnecting doors while going over the points (seriously dangerous) If for some reason we can't take them back on the train they would have to be walked out of the depot by the DRM or someone else licenced to do so If the passenger(s) decides to detrain themselves and go walkabout in the depot then obviously it gets a bit more complicated (don't think they won't). DRM = Duty Reliability Manager we have had one go missing already π The panel on the J Door can be broken to access the handle, never underestimate the ingenuity and determination of our passengers. At the moment it isn't a big problem as the passenger numbers are nothing like they were pre-Covid and we're only running a 3-train service in the peaks. If passenger numbers recover and we start running later that could change. Its certainly not the end of the world but it could be rather amusing. 3 in an hr on Monday, 2 needed the driver to go to the passenger, one of them, the passenger was out of his head π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 16, 2020 16:26:50 GMT
With some additional earlies for us, not that that matters to you π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 15, 2020 13:56:56 GMT
In which case, surely having the shuttles is pointless and you may as well keep projecting what trains were being projected from Woodford via Hainault to Central London previously through to Central London? I thought the idea of having a 4 car unit was that it would release another 4 car unit for mods, which will obviously not be possible if you then have to stick with an 8 car? That would require a new timetable and duty rosters which would mean carrying on with WTT69 for several months while further delaying the heavy overhaul (should have been completed by August 2017). indeed, defeats the objective somewhat, no reduction, no point changing WTT69
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 14, 2020 9:26:46 GMT
1992 Stock de-icing D cars are 934xx . Or 924** I should know, but been down drain too long π 924xx B cars donβt carry de-icing equipment. Cheers, no need for deicing down drain and the units go from 01-10 down there
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 13, 2020 19:43:37 GMT
Or 924** I should know, but been down drain too long π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 13, 2020 17:36:39 GMT
Not knowing the specifics of the 1992 stock is it possible to swap the deicing car from a B-D unit with the B car in the A-B units with some wiring modifications? So, to clarify, the deicing equipment is housed on the B-C car, and is operated from the leading A car? I assume one set per 8 car train. Is the deicing gear designed to remove ice from the conductor rails, or to prevent ice forming? When I was travelling to and from school in the 60s, I remember that, at East Acton just off the west end of the eastbound platform there was some kind of box in the outer conductor which seemed to have fluid in it which was applied to the pickups via a small roller. Was that some kind of deicer unit, and if so, are they still in use? itβs a β94***β car if memory serves me correct
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 13, 2020 17:35:33 GMT
And yet the timetable clearly has a 4-car train with a de-icing unit. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens in two weeks (if it happens) although as far as I'm aware none of us have been briefed on how any of this is going to work. only briefing Weβve had is the new J door opening system π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 13, 2020 16:09:34 GMT
there are times when a PNR isnβt requested, usually when dire needs. In 25 yrs, Iβve had just 2.
There are many occasions a driver contacts the TM to make them aware of the PNR, only to be called by the controller just as youβre approaching the crew point, that thereβs no relief driver, then promptly hang up, hoping youβll continue. We have many female drivers who deliberately dehydrate themselves so they donβt have to go to the toilet, their answer is usually βitβs ok for you blokes, you can open the M door!β, and so they donβt drink. Occupational health wonβt go anywhere near it, and so you hear and read so many staff comments from women requesting longer turn around times and less siding reversers, just so they can have some dignity at work. Progressive, my a**e!
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 11, 2020 16:13:57 GMT
not necessarily an agreed location What do you mean? Any Train operator must request a P.N.R in line with the Rule book. those who donβt may have an item booked and recorded if this causes a delay. If you gotta go, ya gotta go. Whether youβre booked or not has no bearing on it whatsoever, so again, not necessarily an agreed location π ok, say a driver requires the toilet at Holborn on central line, and cannot hold on, then they take it there, which - iβm guessing - isnβt regarded as an βagreed locationβ. So long as you let controller know (if you ainβt legging it) any location is ok. In all my time Iβve never read about agreed locations, Iβve heard of assumed agreed locations i.e. crew points, terminus stations, but again, when ya gotta go, ya gotta go, no ones gonna stop ya π¬ Also, the assumption of many that a PNR exclusive for using the toilet, it isnβt, itβs for a physical need, which includes using the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Jan 2, 2020 5:47:38 GMT
Thought it was physical needs reliefs. P.N.B is a Main-line railway term and does not exist on the Underground, the L.U equivalent being meal relief, colloquially known as βgrub.β This is halfhour unpaid, and undisturbed {so may be taken off premises} for duties over 10.5 hr {i seem to remember, someone may want to clarify; so this doesnβt apply to standard passenger operators as their duties arenβt so long} its 1 hr meal relief. A P.N.R is an unscheduled time away from normal duties for something that has arisen outside of the usual meal relief time, for train operators this is usually taken at the ends of the line or in the depot, but can be taken at an an agreed location on a running line between the T/Op and Service control. not necessarily an agreed location
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 28, 2019 17:03:50 GMT
Not sure if I should ask this but how do train drivers take toilet breaks? If not at meal relief time then facilities are provided at strategic platforms for quick use. If the matter is more urgent then a PNR Physical Needs Relief can be taken at a station, as long as Controller informed in advance, and trains would be held. (ps. DO NOT accept free bottles of Lucozade given out by drivers!) As much as itβd be nice for the controller to answer, if itβs urgent and the controller hasnβt answered the call, then even that dignity will be bypassed π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 28, 2019 17:00:11 GMT
No canteens on the met, chocolate machines at all locations, this seems like profit before staff health to me. Dont you use Wembley Park?
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 25, 2019 20:15:14 GMT
Love how the right wing media use the title βunion bossesβ as if our trade unions were the same as US unions, run by the mafia. Iβve never had a union boss, I wonder what having one would be like π€ I guess if I was employed by the union, then Iβd have a union boss, however, I pay a sub, go to branch meetings, propose items for discussion, join in debate, vote on proposals, discuss disputes, vote on disputes....hmmm, I guess I am my own boss in the union, does that make me a βunion bossβ I wonder π€ Another thing is how many of my colleagues have the notion of themselves being separate from the union, theyβve been sold a red herring and bought it. They then donβt take part in organising, think their reps are foisted upon them, decisions made they have no say in. I just wanna shake them and scream βYOU ARE THE UNION!β
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 24, 2019 5:48:39 GMT
So what is to happen now? Whenever one of these short trains is going to the depot it must travel to Newbury Park (travelling in public service?) and reverse direction of travel there so that it can access the depot via Hainault station platform 3? This may sound cumbersome but it is only a couple of trains and who knows .. it might be cheaper and easier to do this than add extra power supply rails at Hainault depot! As an aside, the RAT train reverses at Newbury Park in this way, so maybe no signalling changes will be needed. I'm sure they'll have a work through, knowing what that usually means, it'll be a rehash with little change to the proposed, a fair few late finishes and shortened turnarounds etc. Got this from the Ruislip rep other day. Reminds me of the time they had to give pardon to many, many drivers having SPADs on the Jubbly extension after test track drivers and the reps complained SPADs would be common on certain signals once passenger loading took place. First time a passenger train went from Canning Town to North Greenwich and saw a yellow on the repeater, the driver knew there was no way he'd stop π³ all because they thought the valuable insight of the test track drivers wasn't necessary. Just drivers trying to be awkward again by being negative π I believe the first engineering works closure on the extension was within a year of opening and solely to sight the offending signals before moving them π Nothing new under the sun βοΈ Reminds me of when R stock went to 7-car trains by taking a car from 8 car formations and putting it into 6-car formations. Before then the fault isolating switch was in the middle of 8-car trains, but could mean 2 cars pushing 4 cars in 6-car formation. We ended up with 2 cars having to move 5 cars in some new formations. Unions claimed it would never work up Bow Bank, but engineers had all the calculations to prove there was no problem. Practical drivers asked for a test run at Acton end of Ealing depot, as steep as Bow Bank. All the nobility were present to witness that it wouldn't budge, and they had to revise the rules! Emperors new clothes π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 23, 2019 14:41:22 GMT
From the ASLEF Central Line East branch whatsapp I believe the word we are looking for is "whoops". Got this from the Ruislip rep other day. Reminds me of the time they had to give pardon to many, many drivers having SPADs on the Jubbly extension after test track drivers and the reps complained SPADs would be common on certain signals once passenger loading took place. First time a passenger train went from Canning Town to North Greenwich and saw a yellow on the repeater, the driver knew there was no way he'd stop π³ all because they thought the valuable insight of the test track drivers wasn't necessary. Just drivers trying to be awkward again by being negative π I believe the first engineering works closure on the extension was within a year of opening and solely to sight the offending signals before moving them π Nothing new under the sun βοΈ
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 2, 2019 6:06:38 GMT
I used to go to this pub years ago, when it was a bit rougher and they had no problem saying the pub was in Forest Gate. I guess trendy Leytonstone village is more marketable, but the pubs still in Forest Gate, wouldn't chance the trip from Leytonstone π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 14, 2019 4:21:17 GMT
Over establishment = likely
Enough to run a train service = most certainly not
Going back on memory and putting my old rep head on around the 2009 agreement, the whole thing revolved about saving 2 reps from one of the TUs on the functional council from going back to drive trains, all triggered by a rep review that revealed quite a large discrepancy among representatives ratio to members, and I do believe the all grade Union was showing they had more driver members than the exclusive union had, so had asked for parity on the Funcrional Council to reflect the membership. The review was carried out and presented to the council showing there would be parity, however, the 'agreement' was already being discussed with the exclusive Union which started to restrict rosters in return for them keeping a 6:3 split in favour of the exclusive Union. As a rep of the exclusive Union I raised issue as did many others, but was told keeping 6 rep positions on the council was far more important than keeping depot rosters at the level they were pre 2009 agreement.
So, again, data, over established blah blah blah, the reality is, there isn't enough operators to run the timetables, we knew that then and we know it now π
The faustian deal has placed both unions in a 'damage limitation' protocol, one Union knows it, the other believes that negotiating the '3 bags full' method is progress π‘
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 12, 2019 9:33:39 GMT
We had about a quarter of Hainault retire recently, and West Ruislip are also struggling. White City are not too bad, having a few long term sick back to work and a few night tubers promoted. However WHC spares are being farmed out to other depots to run for them. Also, It is not really a temporary shortage when it takes 3 to 4 months to train a driver up. 3 at Leytonstone. People believe whatever they're told by the 'controlling powers'. I don't ever remember communications being put out like they have done in past 5 years. 2009 agreement issues over roster sizes slapping now, 3 go out, 1 comes in, coupled with poor management and an automated absence system linked to line ops, that allows for little to no discretion from the Train Managers, and you're left with the workers taking the blame while the real culprits pat each other on the back for dodging the rounds again and looking at the next step on ladder π In addition, fewer drivers want to transfer due to ending up bottom of the pool (I know opinions will differ wildly on this subject, depending on perspective), which has disrupted flows of train staff movements. In my opinion, there was a combine wide seniority progression, that's no longer there, it meant junior pool drivers could've been in pool a bit longer, but it wasn't excessive
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 6, 2019 13:37:16 GMT
Rear Cab Clear plungers in order to complete the handover process, otherwise the relieving driver will have to wait for the previous driver to change ends before taking the train. There is a procedure in place to reverse in the middle road at Loughton to ensure passengers for Epping are cleared before closing the doors and opening them on the WB side, this can take about a minute, followed by an obligatory 4 minute turnaround before departing west. I can't see the need to turnaround as quickly as they do at Elephant & Castle (Bakerloo), Stratford (Jubilee), Bank/Waterloo depot (W & C line). To do so would require a 4-5min headway between each Loughton reverser Most helpful; thank you DR. I'd never heard of rear cab clear plungers Do you have any feel as to how long it takes to reverse a train at **Debden**? I'm assuming longer than 5-6 minutes, because of tipping out and walking through the train in the turnback road? And I presume the same would apply at Newbury Park... The turnarounds at both are between 8-15 minutes Arnos Grove doesnβt have R.C.C plungers yet performs stepping back during the peak in the middle platform. Probably because the headways are longer than 4 mins. Anything less requires a rear cab clear procedure, hence a plunger. Wherever it's an in/out dwell, can be 20-30 seconds at Bank W&C line, the RCC is a requirement
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 6, 2019 0:56:37 GMT
Rear Cab Clear plungers in order to complete the handover process, otherwise the relieving driver will have to wait for the previous driver to change ends before taking the train.
There is a procedure in place to reverse in the middle road at Loughton to ensure passengers for Epping are cleared before closing the doors and opening them on the WB side, this can take about a minute, followed by an obligatory 4 minute turnaround before departing west. I can't see the need to turnaround as quickly as they do at Elephant & Castle (Bakerloo), Stratford (Jubilee), Bank/Waterloo depot (W & C line). To do so would require a 4-5min headway between each Loughton reverser
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 5, 2019 8:51:07 GMT
Folks, is "stepping forward" intended at Loughton to achieve rapid turnround of reversers coming in from the City etc? It would be logical. If so, expect a bus shelter to go up soon at the London end of Loughton platforms? Stepping back.... Possibly not, they don't have required facilities to facilitate it
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 5, 2019 6:38:30 GMT
I only became aware of the TT change when I was looking at the roster in order to pick 2 leave days that'd give me a long weekend off, and told there was a change due but they had no idea when π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 5, 2019 6:32:14 GMT
The posts on twitter are shameful. Simply 'ranting' (sic) with politicains and the local 'press' jumping on the bandwaggon without actually knowing the facts. One stream complained about there being only two trains an hour to Epping in the peak! A local politician then complained about fewer trains to and from Woodford which is again untrue. I do feel for the TfL publicity machine; this is an unenviable task with irrational people who would no doubt complain if fares went down and frequency went up! This is simply a case of those affected shouting loudest. They don't have a vote in the mayoral election anyway! Maybe there's another twitter feed coming.......!? Any chance of a link to the feeds?
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Oct 7, 2019 10:41:55 GMT
They were certainly much more dingy prior to the current lighting being installed. Agree. Think it's just a case of increased expectations as things improve. Who'd accept smokey tunnels and trains these days
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Oct 3, 2019 22:36:15 GMT
Once in 20yrs, about 9 yrs ago on a night shift.
.....and it has been used when they've had engineer works between Leytonstone - Woodford
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Aug 27, 2019 19:48:35 GMT
it left the drivers a bit confused. Suffice to say there were several guises to start with, followed up by the SOO sending an email saying a waiver had been issued, but it was questioned why a waiver to the rule book would be issued when there's nothing in the rule book about what they were issuing the waiver for.....
So, I think it didn't reach the intranet, cause someone along the line saw the madness of it π
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Aug 27, 2019 10:56:12 GMT
Exactly, it was issued as a 'waiver' and we refused it, but it was issued nonetheless. It was given to the drivers at Waterloo, the drivers refused to accept it, so they sent some bully boys, still refused, so they withdrew. I believe it was issued without review of rule book, then questioned by drivers, the SOO pointed out there was nothing in rule book saying you couldn't carry out said procedure, which was answered with "so why the waiver?" After which it was put down to the Wood Lane controllers manager. It was an interesting skirmish, I must say π€ I was on the Formal Investigation Report (FIR) when they issued the very first QRA (quantified risk assessment) on the Picc many, many years ago, was questionable then but has evolved somewhat and it's good to see it isn't issued at the drop of a hat, which was our worry back then. In the early days the SOOs were quite hasty, but they seem to have reined it in a little π
|
|