|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 17, 2012 15:42:02 GMT
.. and there were a few clips on the local London BBC news at lunchtime - probably repeated tonight at 18.30. Unfortunately, the sound of 1 departing was masked by the voiceover and the interior of 392 included Peter Hendy looking somewhat fey (Fay, even...) but otherwise quite nice.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 15, 2012 16:56:42 GMT
Not sure what you mean by "free scale" but the Quail map of the area should show everything - it's the one that train planners use!
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 15, 2012 10:26:38 GMT
... and then there was the Tramway Cafe in Edmonton just beside the garage. (Can't vouch for the loos there, though).
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 7, 2012 11:18:46 GMT
@xercesfobe -in fact, the SWT "snowflake" cuts were caused by something even more serious/stupid - NR have decided that their MPVs will be converted from leafbusters to de-icers only when the timetable changes (ie this weekend) regardless of the actual weather. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will be served ...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 3, 2012 9:58:55 GMT
I liked this a lot: it does reduce a complex network to a visually very clear design. But beware - the TLK bidders have plans to change the service patterns somewhat, particularly in relation to the Wimbledon loop and the GN outers (no! that doesn't they will link Wimbledon to Peterborough...).
Now let me urge you to add Xrail and you will have very nicely recreated the updated version of the map that used to hang in NSE HQ as our vision for the future. It's a powerful statement of how to plan the London rail network sensibly: ... if only...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 1, 2012 18:27:16 GMT
Slohn Sqwah, surely? Then there's Quince Pok, Persons Grin and Sint Chemz Pok and - eventually - there will be presumably be Batterceya on the Northern. "Fraffly Well Spoken" is the recommended read for more of this...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 1, 2012 11:42:22 GMT
Then there's Sinjuns Wood and Simples.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 24, 2012 19:53:58 GMT
@stig - the basic difference between smoking and drinking is that - so far as I know - there is no such thing as passive drinking (if only!) - but well into the '70s in offices you had to sit next to people on 40 a day without complaint. Don't think it has done me any lasting harm fortunately, but then you couldn't complain and you'd go home with your clothes reeking of stale smoke. Ugh. Smokers really need to understand that those near to them (physically) think it's dangerous and anti social and actually makes one sick these days. What they do in the comfort of their own homes is their look out, and if they wish to waste a few grand a year for the opportunity to die a bit sooner, as a taxpayer, I'm happy with that...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 23, 2012 22:58:53 GMT
Thinking back to the fifties, when smoking was commonplace, the abiding memory is of the acrid smell and the filth on the floor and in all the joints of the cars' bodywork, particularly on wet days. Coupled with the low intensity lighting and the fug, travel in Underground trains was almost unimaginably gloomy by comparison with today, but presumably it was even worse in steam/gaslighting days. (The introduction of fluorescent lighting and lighter paint schemes in the 1959ts came as a revelation).
BTW it seems quite common to tell the punters of smoking "pauses" - this happened to me on a recent steam tour, for example.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 22, 2012 12:40:38 GMT
@tomcakes - I think this answers my initial question as to whether the judgement will change matters - presumably not.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 21, 2012 12:25:36 GMT
trt/aslefshrugged - if the definition of what is reasonable hasn't moved then frontline staff like the police and railway operating staff will not complain; their judgements will continue to apply to the same context as before. If the definition is perceived (would underline this, but can't) to have moved then we will face extra caution by operating staff. If the definition has actually moved then we are all in the soup... The worst case would be if staff are obligated to deliver absolute safety, although from what trt reports, that fortunately hasn't been the case here.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 21, 2012 11:21:47 GMT
Sorry, for the sake of clarity, my comments were not about the individual case, but about two related things - one was how operating staff will react to it, and secondly to raise the question of whether staff are always going to be exposed to make a judgement as to the safety situation at any moment, bearing in mind that there is no such thing as absolute safety, and - if so - as to whether this case will move the test of reasonableness. If it does, then operating staff will react accordingly as their own judgement calls will be under even tougher scrutiny.
BTW, I wish you were right about the US cases being irrelevant, but unfortunately, our courts and theirs do pay attention to each others' judgements. Not only the courts, alas, but the legal profession generally - witness the enormous increase in injury claims in recent years despite more stringent safety and product liability legislation, to the point where the Cabinet spent some time about 10 years ago considering whether to introduce a "no liability" law along the lines currently in force in New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 21, 2012 10:43:06 GMT
aslefshrugged - of course, operating staff have an overriding duty of care. The question for the legal experts is whether that is also subject to a reasonableness test. Hitherto, in the UK it is - otherwise no surgeon would ever perform any sort of operation or any other professional undertake any sort of work. But in the US, it is not so (at least in some states) wit the result that it is very difficult to get some forms of professional service at all - the executant simply can't afford or even get professional indemnity insurance. The relevance of the Merseyside case to all this is whether it extends the ambit of the duty of professional care to the point where whatever it is becomes impossible in practical terms. As indicated in my earlier post, it's not possible to have an absolute safety regime anywhere all the time (and not just on the railway), so what are the new limits on staff judgement? GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 21, 2012 10:06:35 GMT
It's hardly possible to comment on the individual case, of course, but if I was a railway operator, I would be concerned about its longterm implications. Firstly, guards (and drivers and platform staff) will now become ultracautious before dispatching any train, with the inevitable extended dwell times. Secondly, it's virtually impossible for a guard or anyone else to monitor passenger behaviour all the time; I particularly have in mind the few seconds between giving the right away, ducking back into the doorway, and the train actually moving (or, in the case of drivers, checking that all is well and turning back to the controls.). At walking pace, a pedestrian can cover 1-2 metres in a second - quite enough time for a drunk to move from the back of the platform to the side of the train.
Graham Hewett
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 19, 2012 9:41:39 GMT
Extremely good to see the word "proleptic" still in use. It deserves a wider public, especially given the recent tendency for news channels to lead with items such as "Later this afternoon, the Prime Minister is expected to attack an announcement to be made by the leader of the Opposition this morning on the subject of XYZ. He will make the point etc etc...." A whole week's news in seconds.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 15, 2012 20:21:49 GMT
I'll up the ante with Imperial Wharf
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 14, 2012 19:57:38 GMT
Fleet line east of CX? [Not sure how far the tunnels were fitted out]
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 27, 2012 17:57:21 GMT
@dennis - interesting - I'm surprised that LU don't number the stock anyway -compare the National Rolling Stock Library, who number everything regardless of ownership.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 27, 2012 17:31:28 GMT
... and not numbered amongst the LT service fleet?
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 27, 2012 17:24:43 GMT
How could you all forget? The clocks go back tonight, so one of us must play Greenwich, otherwise the game is automatically suspended until the Epact is IV or Christmas falls on a Tuesday, whichever is earlier. So, I'll sacrifice a winning move and play Greenwich...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 26, 2012 11:23:46 GMT
As Rowlands Castle is less than 20 miles from my home station, that move is definitely a hit below the belt and the Queensbury and Shelf rules apply. To block any further aggressive move of that sort, I am forced to play Boot. (SYPTE footnote + indicates that the move takes place only during the trout fishing season)
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 26, 2012 10:18:02 GMT
Yes, but to be Blunt, I'm not the Sixth Man. As to Clarke-Trimble, the Heisenberg principle of the uncertain effect of the observer's intervention applies, and as Thurber comments, Trimble was killed when a garden rake, which he failed to notice, hit him in the face. It's easier to follow the logic if you play MC in the Doric - Morningside, therefore...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 26, 2012 9:24:01 GMT
Stuermberger is surely too mainstream these days since her equation failed to predict the previous platform singularity at ... Cambridge. You also need to to look up the Clarke-Trimble experiments (with apologies to James Thurber) into staggered platforms on either side of an LX; the results were never conclusive but are generally understood to be a better explanation of the sudden disappearnce of punters than the previous "Black hole" or "subway" theory.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 25, 2012 16:49:14 GMT
Quy anyone?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 24, 2012 18:41:48 GMT
Ah, but now you can only play a mainline station not owned by Network Rail and not used by Eurostar - Hatch End, therefore. And you should follow on with a TLS (Three Letter Station) to avoid the rule 16(b) (i) (c) penalty.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 23, 2012 16:46:31 GMT
Not an LU station, but the other evening we paused at Betchworth, where a somewhat surprised rabbit on platform 2 watched the train come and go very coolly - and no it didn't consult its pocket watch and declare us to be 5 down (which we were)...
BTW as a potential claimant of the quietest station anywhere in the country, when my former colleagues came to clear Redesmouth Junction when it was closed, the station books revealed that the total takings in the previous 80 years amounted to £186.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 22, 2012 8:49:44 GMT
... and some, I believe may be owned by people, who, were I to mention them, would have to kill you and me...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 19, 2012 9:00:49 GMT
I'm afraid I can't remember - we were driving in, I think, the Welford area and my attention was caught by a series of PIS displays as we passed through several villages, which prompted me to look to see what level of service was being offered - knowing Northants curmudgeonly reputation for all things public transport. [Here in darkest Surrey, where the county is very good at supporting bus services, we have nothing like PIS, only the odd extravagant bus shelter that sees a bus once a day, but we do have "proper" paper timetable books available free of charge and widely distributed ].
Graham H
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 19, 2012 6:52:52 GMT
I'm not sure that Countdown and its tube analogue actually render published timetables redundant - I passed through one Northamptonshire village recently where the council had invested in very expensive real time displays at bus stops. The display read "Next bus: Tuesday"...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 18, 2012 18:53:53 GMT
@class 413 - I believe that TfL/LT use a figure of 15 minutes as the service interval threshold for turn up and go (as one sees from the infamous footnote to high frequency bus services about not sticking to the timetable but managing it in real time to maintain the interval specified). Personal observation suggests that the threshold is probably much lower these days - say, every 10 minutes ; the 15 min figure is now very old (possibly going back before the War), and these days people expect gratification much faster...
BTW. Your point is one of the important differences between train and plane - something the TOCs don't like to hear.
gh
|
|