|
Post by q8 on Jun 1, 2005 10:53:20 GMT
OK so the Bushbaby has flogged off the tube to the monkeymen and tosspots.No-one of our station (no pun) had any say in it and had to accept a "fait accompli" But the method they applied is beyond logic to me. The Metropolitan, District etc sold to one firm and the Piccadilly & Jubilee sold to another. Consequently trains of on firm running on the track of the other have to pay for the privilege. This stinks of a scam to me. Why on earth did they not flog it off on the basis of the old divisions? Met/Jubilee District/Picc etc. No, too easy! Someone somewhere saw a chance to put a few bob in his pocket by the usual "divide & rule" Hitler used to run Germany on the same principle and look what happened there! It's about time folk in this land woke up to cons and scams being dumped on us and having to pay through the nose for them. To paraphrase Churchill "never in the field of human history was so much owed by so few to so many" (Retires to bed for his nap expecting the Gestapo to bang on the door to cart him off for sedition)
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jun 1, 2005 14:01:05 GMT
PPP is not quite the same as the privitised National Rail network. All the infrastructure, trains, stations, etc are still owned and operated by London Underground. The private companies are merely contracted to maintain it all. I would agree that the lines could have been grouped together better, but it has not created a divide as far as LUL station and trains staff are concerned. PPP has only affected engineering and 'behind the scenes' staff. The fines you mention also only apply with regard to wether a given piece of equipment works or not. There are no access charges for trains like there are on National Rail.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jun 1, 2005 17:29:42 GMT
Thank you Colin for the correction mate. I was under the impression that ownership had been altered as well. Still don't approve of it though.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jun 1, 2005 18:55:07 GMT
I don't think many of us do!! To be fair, although there's a ridiculous amount of disruption going on at the moment, at least things are starting to get done. I dunno how our customers are keeping up with it all though, there's so much work listed in the traffic circular at the moment, I have to check it every day at the start of my duty, so that I know which stations i'm not stopping at!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Jun 2, 2005 12:18:22 GMT
Keep in mind that a cornerstone of EU:s transportation policy is the separation of infrastructure and operators in the railway sector.
That is, the railway infrastructure is required to be a separate entiety, only tasked with providing an infrastructure for various different operating companies to run their trains over. This is supposed to bring transparency, a clear division of responsibility and a environment that fosters a well-functioning market. This is especially important on the mainline railways, where Open Access operations (ie, buy a train, get a license and a path, and start running your trains!) is another cornerstone of EU policy, and one that is constantly pushed as the great way ahead.
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 2, 2005 18:16:30 GMT
I would agree that the lines could have been grouped together better, but it has not created a divide as far as LUL station and trains staff are concerned. PPP has only affected engineering and 'behind the scenes' staff. As far as the Sub-Surface Lines go, they did a half-decent/sensible job of grouping. We do all share each other's track more or less (except the W&C or has that gone back to tubelines? Can never tell with that thing - seems to change from one week to the next.) As for the divide on the operating side, it's there trust me. We might not swap money (yet) but it's there. Quite often we are put into a situation where we have to decide who to delay. The Met or the Jubilee, and just lately it's also a case of the Met or the H&C or District. We run services on behalf of 4 Service Control Managers - 3 of which pay our wages (guess which one doesn't District chaps ;D ). They all want "their" trains on time. Years ago, should a delay to one or other occur, there was much less friction. Now, if the Met shuts down between Wembley and Finchley Road due to a failure, we cannot divert over the Jubilee like we used to - even if the Jubilee has a huge gap in its service which could be filled by a nice A-stock. I don't think many people approve of it, but should some of these SCMs start giving sly back-handers to ensure their service runs to time, then maybe I could grow to like it
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jun 2, 2005 18:36:39 GMT
Point taken citysig. I was thinking more of station and trains staff, (who may be loyal to their line banter wise) as they don't really care much about who owns what or who fixes it.
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 2, 2005 18:45:31 GMT
That's another avenue. We are loyal mainly within the room, mostly across the line, and sort of within our business unit (though there are issues.) The way in which our grade is set up, we tend to work slightly more independantly than the general signalling grade. It's not that we want to be like that, it's the way we are isolated in a sense from the rest of the grade.
As for who fixes what, we give any fault to the SSL report centre, who, after arguing it's not on their patch, pass it on to whoever's patch it is.
We don't tend to care too much about who is going to fix it, except when a signal is owned by one and the trainstop owned by another. Then it becomes annoying. Or point failures that delay the Met requiring to be fixed by a TO from Arnos Grove.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jun 2, 2005 18:49:08 GMT
I'm glad I just drive the things!! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Admin Team on Jun 2, 2005 19:01:15 GMT
Interesting thoughts expressed.
I'm (sadly) old enough to remember BR pre (re)privatisation and always struggled with the concept of 'why will a privatised network run better than a nationalised one'. I suppose the bottom line is - as usual - cash. If there's a profit to be seen then maybe, just maybe, someone will sink an investment into it.
This of course ignores the governments (and I include all, not just the present incumbents) short term views. Until government is prepared to commit to a financial strtaegy beyond the life of a parliament this won't change, IMHO.
Citysig's comments (as usual) are thought provoking, and in my 'previous life' I used to argue essentially this point where we had 'cost centres' that were effectively billing/paying each other within the same organisation. Did it really matter? Did it improve (truthfully) performance, or productivity or whatever. I was a) never convinced and b) persuaded that it did. Perhaps that's why they were pleased to make me an offer I couldn't refuse.....
But, from my point of view, I actually started with LU on the day that the 'shadow running' as it was first called started first came in to being - so I've never known different. The main gripe I suppose I have is that too few of the office staff (lawyers, accountants and miscellaneous jobsworths) seem to have any idea what a railway actually is, and what it involves on an operational level.
Many of the top bods (including Tim O'Toole) do seem to come out - but to me there seems a gap somewhere in between.
Cross line and operational co-operation should be the norm. 'We' only exist to provide a means of movement to the population, and will gain far more by being seen to try to overcome problems than by making excuses about we can't go down that line because it's (nominally) owned by someone else. What the public see is a set of rails which they know heads in the right direction and trains - they don't care that someone else nominally owns either.
Sort the minutiae out later - in the short term move the trains, and therefore the paying passengers.
Or am I being simple here?
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 2, 2005 19:23:02 GMT
Or am I being simple here? No you're not being simple. It really should be just about that. A month or two ago I had a points failure at Neasden. The indication dropped away, meaning the signals protecting them naturally remained at danger. I had a Met stuck on one road and a Jub on the other - both reasonably loaded. I tried the points and they worked in the reverse position. This meant I could run the Met via the Jub as far as Finchley Road. I tried the points at Finchley Road to make sure they worked (as they are prone to failure) and they did. I set the whole route up for the Met to divert. In contact with both controllers, neither wanted to commit to diverting. The Jub even remarked "I want my train moved as there are people on it." To which I replied "Your train is going nowhere and there are people on the Met too. Let's at least move one train while we can." Both disagreed. In the end I contacted the Met driver and instructed him to take the route. Behind the passage of the Met, the points returned to normal and the indication came back - meaning the Jub could also now be moved under signals. (Of course this last part gave me a nice warm feeling inside as it wasn't guaranteed to happen but it really stuck two fingers up to those above me ;D) The way around this failure both lines were intending to take was secure up (using separate staff from each line) then pass the trains under rule. That could have taken a very long time - in fact as a precaution, after the two stranded trains were moved, the route was secured. It took almost 45 minutes. I don't blame either controller. They were reacting to instructions from above. Had things worked differently I may have had to answer a few questions. But at least for that moment I hope I reminded a few people that at the end of the day we are still in the business of running a railway and nothing else. As an aside, I too remember BR, and was a regular traveller. I have to say that, despite the whole thing being a pretty bad idea, it has got a lot better than BR days. I now have twice as many trains to my place than before. But I agree it shouldn't have happened that way. Had the governments invested as they should years ago instead of on wars and roads, we could have a pretty decent system by now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2005 0:53:17 GMT
The way around this failure both lines were intending to take was secure up (using separate staff from each line) then pass the trains under rule. That could have taken a very long time - in fact as a precaution, after the two stranded trains were moved, the route was secured. It took almost 45 minutes. I remember during my time on the Jubilee, we had a points failure heading in to Neasden depot, and one set of points had to be secured by a Jubilee DMT because they were JNP property, and the other set had to be a Met DMT, being SSR track! Completely crazy! In fact, I seem to remember they installed emergency scotches and clips in blue boxes on the platforms labelled "SSR ONLY" or "JNP ONLY" etc! I say again: Completely crazy!
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jun 3, 2005 4:04:59 GMT
You can sum all that up with three sentences. 1. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. 2. Too many cooks have ruined the broth. 3. If it AIN'T broke DON't fix it.
|
|