|
Post by rheostar on Apr 14, 2015 7:15:00 GMT
As it happens, I asked the same question on the LU Intranet site as my wife has a priv ticket.
Apparently, armed with their iPads the staff on duty in the booking hall can put a code into the ticket machines to enable a reduced rate ticket to be issued. It has to be done manually so that the priv ticket and its owner can be checked.
We've not tried it yet, but when we do I'll post in here.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Apr 11, 2015 9:10:18 GMT
Drivers would usually approach platforms at almost line speed in tunnel sections and then brake. From what I've heard, some of the approach speeds are quicker, some are slower, and some are about the same! Most drivers enter the platform at line speed and brake with little margin for error. They can't creep along worried that someone might jump under their train. Years ago when I had 'one under', although I saw the bloke on the track I still managed to put three cars over him. It all depends on where they jump onto the track. PEDs are the way to go as they'd prevent about 99% of PTI incidents. However, LU doesn't like the cost retro fitting PEDs and the unions are wary as they're a precursor to fully auto working.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 23, 2015 9:05:52 GMT
I think two separate things are being mixed up. P&D targets for Train Operators don't lead to any bonus as Train Ops are not on any form of PRP. Targets set are basically things for the individual to aim for - perhaps an area where they have flagged up as falling short, or maybe a development target to help the individual work towards securing a promotion. The practical use of this is open to debate, however the right targets and support from the individual's manager can help the individual - eg a day shadowing a controller could be the next step towards a promotion or sideways move. PRP is a completely different process which generally applies to managers, who have to physically demonstrate they have achieved targets. My personal view is that this does not work well at all. What tends to happen is that certain individuals spend a lot of time chasing perceived opportunities to demonstrate achieving a target and producing portfolios, whilst those who simply spend their time diligently getting on with their job don't get the PRP. So you end up with the worst people getting PRP, and the best people get demotivated and take the view "base level of pay, base level of performance". Also it opens up issues of people who don't get on with their manager not getting PRP, as well as the opportunity for performance figures to be gently worked to advantage. This sums it up quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 21, 2015 16:20:00 GMT
Surely arriving on time and in uniform is not something that fully fledged adults have to aspire to! I'm a primary teacher and my Year 3's manage it just fine! ( Mostly..) And I'm sorry to say that as for the rest of the targets, there's work to be done My, my I'm a grumpy sod this evening.. I'm going to the pub. You'd be surprised how difficult it can be to get T/Ops to wear uniform or arrive on time for their duty.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 20, 2015 10:32:06 GMT
How can drivers be set targets? Surely most of the things that cause delays and hamper performance (crowds, signals etc) are out of their hands? Targets such as arriving for work on time, in full uniform, correct PPE, not having SPADs (depends on the line for that one), making customer announcements within the target time (no more than 30 seconds after a train's stationary), keeping the train to time...and much, much more.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 19, 2015 16:27:40 GMT
Once they've stabled their trains, night shift drivers spend the rest of the night in the canteen or mess room until they bring out their trains first thing in the morning. The only time they might run trains during the night is during the winter running sleet trains.
There's a recruitment drive for station staff currently under way and Ashfield House is full of them. They're there to replace the station staff that are training as T/Ops for the increased numbers required for night tube.
People might knock Night Tube, but it's providing a lot of extra jobs on London Underground.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 5, 2015 22:25:27 GMT
A little thing came to light this morning that might have an impact on the strike. As we know, the strike's between 21:30 to 03:59 hrs so will only impact on the night shift T/Ops at the larger depots on LU. The majority of RMT members voting for the strike came from Morden depot. However, guess what depot doesn't have night shifts? Funnily enough, it's Morden where the sacked driver came from. From what I've been told today is that the T/Ops from depots on other lines aren't very impressed. The Ballot Papers are sent to members home address, the only thing on the paper is a box for yes or no. How can you say the majority of RMT members voting yes for a strike came from Mordent Depot. Can you produce evidence of how you know this ? You're right, it was wrong of me to write that. What I should have written was that of the 299 T/Ops combine wide that voted for a strike, I'd think that a high percentage of that number came from Morden depot.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 5, 2015 9:03:16 GMT
A little thing came to light this morning that might have an impact on the strike.
As we know, the strike's between 21:30 to 03:59 hrs so will only impact on the night shift T/Ops at the larger depots on LU.
The majority of RMT members voting for the strike came from Morden depot. However, guess what depot doesn't have night shifts? Funnily enough, it's Morden where the sacked driver came from.
From what I've been told today is that the T/Ops from depots on other lines aren't very impressed.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 4, 2015 9:06:49 GMT
In a workplace environment it would be very intrusive to do blood testing. But in the event of a positive result of course... I note that the LU occupational health person's letter does not describe their procedure in any great depth. It deals purely with the technical aspects of testing, not how the personnel are managed (or mismanaged). They also fail to mention that they should hold a person in a room away from any source of influence like a cigarette or vape for five minutes before taking the sample. If there's any question of mouth rinse or food stuffs contaminating the sample, surely the mouth should be rinsed with water? LU employees have access to the intranet where the D&A policy and procedures can been seen, so it's not necessary for OH to describe them in an internal document. The procedures for D&A testing that we must follow are clearly described in a handbook (something that I won't post on here) that covers every eventuality. Nothing is left to chance. Part of the procedure for a random D&A test is that person chosen is asked if they've been smoking etc prior to having the breath test. Again, all of the factors mentioned above are taken into consideration. Prior to the tests commencing the breath machine is calibrated and witnessed by a duty manager. When a test is carried out, the employee chooses one of several sealed tubes to blow into before it's fitted to the machine. Before giving the sample, the employee is shown the side of the machine to see that it's showing negative. Believe it or not, we're not amateurs at this. Most managers have supervised breath testing many times and have also undergone the same procedure. I've been selected for random testing several times. LU employees know that if we fail the breath test then we must face the consequences. In the end, there's only one person to blame for failing a D&A test.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Mar 3, 2015 17:38:57 GMT
I thought the following might be of interest. It's part of an open letter on the company intranet from LU's Head of Occupational Health regarding breath tests -
Dear colleagues,
I manage London Underground’s Occupational Health department. One of our responsibilities is to ensure that the drug and alcohol testing protocols used by London Underground are consistent, fair and accurate. I have been asked a number of questions recently about the equipment and methodology we use. I’ve also been asked whether diabetes can affect breath alcohol tests.
Testing protocol
Occupational Health is here to ensure the health and wellbeing of all London Underground employees. We take responsibility for all of the medical tests that ensure a safe workplace, such as drug and alcohol tests. The policy at London Underground is ‘zero tolerance’ and we need to be very careful that we test in a way that’s fair and accurate. Unannounced tests are always conducted on multiple employees. Positive breath tests are followed up with a second test.
The Transport and Works Act 1992 requires London Underground to exercise due diligence in its management of safety, in relation to employees and drugs and alcohol. If we didn’t test London Underground could be prosecuted in the event of an accident caused by an intoxicated employee. To help us ensure that drug and alcohol tests are implemented fairly we developed our testing protocol in conjunction with external toxicology and rail industry experts, trade unions and regulators.
Breath alcohol testing
Our testing equipment uses fuel cell technology, which generates a tiny electrical current when exposed to exhaled breath alcohol and oxygen simultaneously. The electrical current generated by the fuel cell can be measured with great accuracy to give a robust, fool-proof way to understand how much alcohol is in somebody’s breath at that moment. Alcohol levels in the breath have a known, consistent relationship with alcohol in the blood. Testing breath for alcohol is the gold standard way to test in a workplace safety context.
Unlike some testing equipment, fuel cell breath alcohol testing does not react to acetone. Acetone is a compound which can build up in a diabetic person’s bloodstream and may trigger ‘false positive’ signals in other (semiconductor-based) testing equipment. The physical properties and design of a fuel cell breath alcohol testing device mean it can’t be affected - in any way - by a diabetic condition.
Urine testing
We do not take urine samples for alcohol tests because these don’t give a ‘real-time’ insight into blood alcohol levels. Breath testing for alcohol – when conducted using high quality fuel cell testing apparatus such as ours – gives results that have a known and consistent relationship to blood alcohol levels. Urine is utilised for our drug testing protocol and is considered to be the best method for this in a workplace context.
My team is here to ensure a healthy and safe workplace and we take pride in ensuring the testing programme is accurate, fair and impartial. Please contact my office if you are in any doubt as to the efficacy of our testing, if you are worried about your drug or alcohol use, or that of your colleagues. We’re here to help.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 28, 2015 7:47:45 GMT
The night shift T/Ops won't be very impressed as they're the only ones losing money.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 21, 2015 11:06:13 GMT
Apologies if I've missed it anywhere, but I don't recall seeing how long tests on LU drivers have been using this type of machine? LU doesn't own or use any of the machines. All of the testing is carried out by an independent laboratory that uses the most advance equipment available, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're more advanced than the ones used by the police. The people carrying out the tests are employed by the same laboratory so are completely impartial. The tests have been going on for all operational staff, not just drivers, for at least 25 years. Fortunately, someone giving a positive test is quite a rare occurrence as we're all acutely aware of LU's zero tolerance policy. In the area that I work, no one including the local RMT reps, have any sympathy for the driver. In fact, someone that's very active in the union remarked that the RMT's only kicking up because the the driver's an RMT rep. If it were anyone else they wouldn't have given a toss.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 18, 2015 8:07:36 GMT
Surely it is in the interests of the employer not to dismiss highly and expensively trained, experienced staff without being absolutely sure that they are doing so unavoidably. Are they defending the cheapest way of random breath testing? Possibly. But balance the infrequent cost of a more diagnostic test against the cost of training a driver... Are they making this driver an example? That's unfair. Are they exercising their muscle? Well past experience should show that a head-on with the union is going to lead to a strike. They need a water-tight case, which they've failed to get. This is why I can't understand LUL's actions in this without recourse to considering the management have a hidden agenda (possibly a chess game with the unions). Public opinion can easily be swayed by emotive language such as drunk driving. I have to conclude that although LUL definitely don't have a water-tight case for dismissing this driver, they have a water-tight PR bomb to use on the run up to a general election which could see the union totally declawed and thus allow them to push through pay freezes, changes of working conditions and umpteen other cost saving initiatives which will ultimately result in more pay in the management's pockets. Actually, LU has a very good drink and drugs rehabilitation program. If someone says they have a problem, they're immediately put on a D&A program where they can dry out under controlled conditions. Once they're back at work they're tested on a regular basis for liver function and breath tested. I can think of five or six people I've referred to this program and are still working for LU.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 18, 2015 8:03:48 GMT
What also bothers me about this is the precedent LU have set. Let's suppose the impossible happens, and a visibly-intoxicated driver turns up for work. He is subject to a random test. They do breath & urine. The meter shows 7. So, what now, if he insists on a second breath test and on the same machine? And that registers 5? Can they do the urine now, because they've already set a precedent with how they've played this case & the testers should now throw it away; after all, two negative breath tests cannot possibly be wrong, can they? And if anyone wonders why the union leader is hot under the collar about this, you try dealing with management that insists on moving the goal-posts of precedent and procedure when it ruddy well suits them, regardless of the consequences for anybody else, as the above hypothesis shows. I have experience of dealing with just that, and pleasant it is not. If someone turns up for work visibly drunk we'd call the BTP and our own testers for a 'for cause' breath and urine test. It's not impossible, unfortunately I've had to deal with this several times over the years.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 17, 2015 9:09:28 GMT
If we assume that the driver's story about having a glass of wine the night before his shift is true, that this was consumed 8 hours before the test ... That's the thing, everyone seems to think the driver's telling the truth. From personal experience, I've know people to deny they've been drinking yet they've later admitted to it.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 16, 2015 23:17:58 GMT
If that's a page in support of the driver they're doing him a disservice! I didn't know it was that high. The driver doesn't have a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 15, 2015 6:54:35 GMT
Why would there be a need for this incident to go to court? At a later date, the driver could take LU to an industrial tribunal . An industrial tribunal IS a court! And it is LU's refusal to say they will respect that court's decision and reinstate the driver if he wins (n.b IF he wins) that the Union objects to. You're right. What I should have added was that the driver can go to an industrial tribunal and if found to have been wrongly dismissed, get compensation. However, from what I know of some previous IT cases he won't get his job back.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 14, 2015 19:44:19 GMT
I actually wonder why he wasn't taken to court, vide the information rheostar has supplied on it being a criminal offence? Is a Tube driver not safety-critical? Seems a little strange, given their agreed zero-tolerance approach, that they apparently don't want to go to court at all. There could be a very good reason for this, of course, but by refusing to allow a higher authority to deal with it, they give the impression they know their case is full of holes, as perhaps advised by their briefs? It's only be a criminal offence if a driver has exceeded the road drink driving limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of breath. In the past, I've been involved with 'for cause' incident testing where a member of staff had been reported as being under the influence of alcohol. The BTP were called and they carried out a breath test on the staff member. The test came up as amber on the breath test machine so the BTP were not interested as although the staff member had been drinking, he'd not exceeded the drink driving limit and not committed a criminal offence. However, the LU's standard is zero. A further breath test was carried out by the independent company that we use and the staff member was proven to have alcohol in his system. He was subsequently dismissed from LU. I'd imagine that the Northern line diver is in a similar situation. He's not committed a criminal offence, but had a positive reading on the breath test. If the test is not zero then he's breached the company standard and will have to face the consequences. Why would there be a need for this incident to go to court? At a later date, the driver could take LU to an industrial tribunal regarding his dismissal where the RMT can fund the driver if they believe he has a good case.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 14, 2015 5:59:55 GMT
Extracts from The LU Company Standard on Drugs and Work -
The purpose of this standard is to ensure that all London Underground (LU) employees and suppliers are aware that LU has a zero tolerance approach to drugs and forbids the use, possession, consumption, storage and sale of illicit drugs on the company’s premises.
b) The Transport and Works Act 1992 places a duty on LU to exercise ‘all due diligence’ to prevent employees from working whilst they are unfit for duty through alcohol and or drugs or where an individual’s ability to work is impaired through the use of alcohol or drugs.
c) Those employees who are categorised as safety critical will be guilty of a criminal offence if they are unfit to carry out their duties through alcohol and/or drugs or where an individual’s ability to work is impaired through the use of alcohol or drugs. Where such breaches are deemed to be gross misconduct, disciplinary action may result in dismissal and criminal consequences may include:
i. fines of up to £5,000;
ii. and/or six months imprisonment.
All employees:
a) shall understand and accept their responsibility to comply with the requirements outlined in this standard;
All LU staff are under no illusion regarding the company's stance on D&A. If we fail the tests we will be dismissed, it's what we expect.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 14, 2015 5:45:16 GMT
These are extracts from our D&A guidelines -
The Transport and Works Act 1992 contains provisions relating to the use of alcohol and drugs by certain employees working on the railway (LU, Agency staff, Contractors and Consultants) defined as safety critical.
Those LU employees who are categorised as safety critical will be guilty of a criminal offence if they are unfit to carry out their duties through alcohol or drugs or if they are under the influence of/unfit because of alcohol or drugs whilst carrying out their duties. ( See Appendix F for a definition of Safety Critical )
All employees are issued with a personal copy of the Standard which is duly signed for. Standards are readily available from the Employee Relations Website. Any manager or employee who has not been issued with a personal copy should check the ER Website or contact their own HRS for a copy. The company has decided that to minimise any safety risks to customers and employees, it will have a ZERO alcohol policy. This also ensures that employees will stay within the limits laid down in the Transport and Works Act.
To guarantee not reporting for work under the influence of alcohol, employees must not consume ANY alcohol in the eight hours immediately before booking on and no more than seven units of alcohol are to be consumed in the sixteen hours before that eight hour period commences.
This is an extract of a message to all LU staff from Nigel Holness (Operations Director JNP) -
...the breath alcohol tests we conduct at LU use a industry-leading fuel cell technology that isn’t affected by diabetes (as has been alleged repeatedly by the RMT). Several other employees were tested but they all showed readings of zero alcohol. The individual at the centre of this case was tested twice. There was alcohol in his bloodstream as he attempted to book on to drive a Northern line train with up to 1000 people on board and that’s a clear breach of our zero tolerance policy, so he lost his job.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Feb 13, 2015 8:40:45 GMT
From what I've seen, the driver admitted having had a drink at some point before coming to work.
The diabetes problem was only raised after the event to try and get the results overturned.
As LU employees, we all know what the D&A rules are and we're under no illusion of the consequences resulting from failing a test.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Jan 29, 2015 10:15:41 GMT
I'm sure I read once that the exact routing of the tunnels was not allowed to be publicised due to safety and security risks, and that actually there were no documents in existence that even showed the accurate positing of them. Or is that all just belloni... !? You're right, the publication of the routing is restricted, but the rest is all just belloni! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Dec 20, 2014 7:19:12 GMT
My old driver told me the same story 35 years ago, although he said it was at Wood Green on the east.
The story in the book is cobblers though, no one's ever been sacked on the spot in LU.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Dec 17, 2014 19:28:19 GMT
Thanks for posting that. There's several faces I recognised, plus a young God who's sadly no longer with us.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Dec 6, 2014 18:47:31 GMT
Network Incident response manager. Taken over most of the responsibilities from the DRM. Not true. DRMs handle 99% of all incidents, they investigate all line incidents and carry out whatever's required by the line. A NIRM will attend incidents that the line based DRMs can't get to quickly, especially in the central London area. They will usually, but not always, attend the more serious incidents such as 'one unders'. DRMs and NIRMs may also attend the same incidents and both act as an additional resource. Once on site, one might take silver control and the other bronze, depending on what's required by the Sevice Manager or SOO.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Dec 2, 2014 9:04:13 GMT
Just to add a little more, the problems at Wood Green went on until mid-morning and in addition there was a person ill on a train at Holloway Road, which caused another 20+ minute suspension of service. The service never did recover with 20-30 cancellations right throughout the day until the close of traffic. So I guess there was little or no Picc Line to Uxbridge for the rest of the day. But of course it wasn't suspended ........ You are right there was an emergency timetable in operation for the rest of the day. all trains from Cockfosters going to Heathrow and shuttle service Acton Town to Rayners Lane. If its any consolation i finished well late at 2am In addition to the Cockfosters - Heathrow service and the Rayners Lane - Acton shuttle, during the peak period an additional four trains ran from Cockfosters through to Uxbridge. So the Uxbridge service wasn't suspended. :-)
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Nov 6, 2014 2:16:38 GMT
When I was a guard motorman, I used to double end with my driver in and out of Wood Green sidings.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 30, 2014 18:34:55 GMT
Has anyone actually asked the travelling public about this? Does anyone know how the idea will enhance passenger comfort, convenience or safety, or even maintain these at their present levels? Faster journey times, increased capacity, more reliable service, safety improved (PEDs, no SPADs, no staff errors), more flexible response to customer flows...
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 27, 2014 9:07:53 GMT
Curved platforms, the guard had monitors at the rear didn't he/she? I agree the in cab CCTV trains 92ts onwards have is very good and yeah you'd be able to see more this way than the guard would be able to as the train leaving, however the drivers main duty is still to be looking at the road ahead and not 100% of his/her attention on some screens infront of them. Also the 73ts Guards would've been able to see the train out leaning from the open rear cab door? The train would've at least been able to stop if the Guard saw this woman with her scarf caught in the doors as it was leaving! When I first joined LU I was a guard on the Piccadilly line for two years. There were no monitors provided at the rear of the train. To try and see along curved platforms we had to go get off the train and go over to the platform wall. By the time we'd get back to the cab loads more passengers could've come onto the platform. We took a chance and closed the doors without a view of the front part of the train. Once we had a pilot light, most guards just used to press the signal button and as soon as the train moved off shut the cab door. We were supposed to stay out for about a third of the platform, but we never did. I'm not sure if H&S would allow someone to hang out of the back of a train these days anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 26, 2014 10:12:53 GMT
Another PTI incident, one of many already and one of many to follow. How long will it take and how many deaths/serious injuries will it take for them to look at it properly and admit taking Guards off trains was a mistake. I'm aiming that more at the railways in the UK in general not just LU. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to have driven trains with a guard! For most of the PTI incidents, having a guard wouldn't have made much difference. The view the drivers have of the side of the train via CCTV is better than what a guard would have, especially on the Piccadilly '73 stock where the guard was in the cab of the sixth car. Any platform with a curve, closing the doors was always a gamble for the guard. The best views are on the stock with in cab CCTV where they can see what's going on after the train has moved off.
|
|