A60 STOCK Service withdrawal dates.

That may have been the case a few weeks back under local arrangement and in a "one off" situation, but in order to build this into a WTT or on a regular basis, walking times etc have still to be agreed.

"common sense", "taking a good guess" or "what happened 5 years ago", isn't good enough for the science of creating a train crew duty schedue!

As for the point on train prep, I imagine the trains would be prepped in Wembley Park sidings overnight, as there would be no scope to change trains over at Neasden as is the practice on other lines.

There simply wouldnt be paths out of the depot at the desired times to get 3 changed over trains into Wembley Park Sidings, allied to the fact that this could possibly result in the requirement for additional train ops.

1.) I didnt say it was rocket science, I stated it was a science, meaning everything has to be 100% accurate and be agreed by the union reps, ie approved walk times. Im sure you and your colleagues are more than capable of working out solutions to temporary problems, as I am sure most people armed with a WTT on this forum are. However translating it to a full time solution given all the constraints is not the same thing!

2.) No - it doesnt take too much nouse, but as per 1. It has to be agreed. Go back to my earlier post. At present there is no agreed walking time to/from WPS for a permanent WTT or TTN. What happens in an emergency situation, or 5 years ago, simply cannot be taken for granted when issuing a new WTT containing an element of stabling that has not occured for a number of years.

It doesn't matter whether there is no brickwork or the clouds in the sky are at a different angle. Union reps will want to exercise their right (correctly so) before new walking times are imposed upon them!!!

3.) Unclear on your point here. I stated that the trains are likely to be prepped in WPS. Not sure who you are disagreeing with???

4.) Fully aware of change over trains on other lines. As I stated, getting paths in and out of Neasden is not as easy as Hammersmith for example. Yes - you can put trains in earlier, but how early? Lets say you put a prepped train in at 2200 when there is a path available out of NDT. What if that trains working the next day didnt stable till 2345 and there was no easy way to fix the train to stable before 2200?

Also you need to take into account the finite nature of train op resource. Sending 3 prepped trains into WPS could potentially add on 90 minutes of additional driving time, which may not work with the current duty schedules, either at the time when paths are available out of NDT into WPS, or at any other time.

As I stated there is a science to all of this, not rocket, but a science. Thats possibly why they employ people to carry out such a role as opposed to letting other staff have a pop at it in their tea breaks?

Yes the schedule allows for both compressors to be kept, ( DHSC & W'HOUSE) motors, and ma's to keep the other units running.

For example on unit 5132, the first to go 6 out of the eight motors are to be kept, the other two scrapped.

There seem to be very definite dates for A stock removal, although I daresay things could change if some units fail completely, with these being withdrawn ahead of schedule.

Are stock withdrawals always planned out in as much detail as this? The last major withdrawal of stock was the 1959 / 62 stock - was this done in a similar way?

I'm not saying that this data is incorrect, this isn't really my part of the project. I did speak to the Project Manager responsible for scrapping the 'A' Stock today and they were very suprised to see this list. According to them they have not yet finalised what will be going and when.

Again, not saying this is wrong but I just thought it worth mentioning.

Why should walking time be an issue? Has Wembley Park shed moved then? OK, I know the new stock is a bit lopnger, but we had this discussion at Waterloo many years ago after the flexible rostering strike of the early 1980's.

5 mins walking from the mess room to any platform was impossible. The shed master at the time tried it; he was a slow walker and in the evening peak it took him 12 mins from the mess room to platform 1, so reluctantly agreed a longer walking time.

Unions are there to negotiate with. they have a useful input and if they are consulted early enough in the process, alot of management time could be saved.

Maybe the control staff have the same tunnel vision (no pun intended) that drivers have, only looking at that day's events which could also cause problems tomorrow. Drivers only concentrate on what is in front of them. Again, if control staff are consulted, they usually have useful experience which could be passed on to the planners.

The shed is no longer a shed, and the roads themselves were renewed. Unfortunately in this day and age, when you change something, even if it is for something almost identical, new agreements have to be reached. The Health and Safety and Union orientated world we work in - just as in many other companies worldwide - means the i's have to be dotted and the t's crossed.

Unfortunately, this can result in a world where we did have many many staff who would go slightly above and beyond the call of duty - for example walking an extra minute or so and not worrying about it. In today's climate, they are basically forbidden from doing so in case their colleague is against it.

Well, out of curiousity, what's the source of the list of withdrawal dates you originally posted? Is it an official list, or is it a hypothesis based on last overhaul dates and so on - as prjb or his well-placed contact don't recognise the list it would be interesting to know.

prjb is an Operational Task Manager with LU's SSR Upgrades team and is directly responsible for ensuring S stock is designed to LU's requirements, as well as S stock's introduction into service with LU - so we know that what he says is fact.

We don't know who you are and so it is quite fair & reasonable for members to ask questions to ensure they are not being led up the proverbial garden path. This is in no way a reflection of mis-trust; quoting the source merely ensures that members will view you as credible.

Hey, I'm not trying to start a, or should I say another , dispute. I am merely saying that after seeing your list I went along to see the Project Manager within Upgrades who is responsible for scrapping the 'A' Stock. I asked them how everything was going (as this isn't my part of the Upgrade) and commented on the fact that things must be progressing well since they had got a scrapping list with units/dates put together. They were quite suprised to hear this and even more suprised when they saw this thread, as they claim not to have put anything together yet.

Again, I'm not saying your wrong (I don't know who you are or where you work) but I am saying that the PM responsible for this area knows nothing about your list.

On a connected note, most members here are quite friendly and will ask questions about the information posted. I personally have answered countless questions over the years on 'S' Stock matters and Upgrade matters in general too, and I have asked a few questions myself along the way. There are staff members, enthusiasts, and members of the travelling public who all jostle around and gain knowledge from one another. If someone does question your posts it really isn't personal or meant as an insult, it is actually a compliment that they are interested enough to want to dig around in your thread a little more.

Latest: All S Stock is now going to be introduced on the entire SSL next week, from start of traffic on Monday. 'I don't need to justify my information to you or any other user.'

deadmans: In reply #47, Colin was giving a real and justifiable statement, that prjb's facts can be verified, but yours, just like my 'information' in the preceding paragraph, can't, simply because people don't know your rank/position/ability to access first-hand information, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable, especially as this board gets read by more and more people and is treated with the respect it deserves (thanks both to the Mods and the users), for people to ask for more information on its source: it's not as though they're wanting to know your inside leg measurement. Think of it as a sign of quality and the fact that this board isn't just a vicious rumour mill.

I post the occasional item on here and I don't feel (as per deadmans) the need to justify my sources of information. If I were to start saying person x who holds this position told me, or person y who does that, then you may find those friends/acquaintences no longer want to give you the gen if you quote them as sources. Not everyone wants to be 'outed' in that sense!

the proof is in the proverbial pudding

If an individuals post (or number of posts) turns out to be a complete floater, then learn to ignore them in the future!

every board has its hans christian fantasists

you learn over time who posts the reliable information!

people who post floaters tend to vanish as quickly as they came!

In terms of LU staff that members of this forum, the forum staff have identified around 98% actually. There are naturally two or three that we are unsure of, as they either don't post very often or are candid in what they give away, but we are absolutely extremely confident in our 98% figure.

Whilst I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, I would say that if you have a complaint about the behaviour of another member, please PM a member of the administration team and we will look into it. We cannot do anything about a problem if you don't tell us.

There's no need to shout.

All I was merely attempting to point out was what others have written in the few posts above this one.......in fact I'll say it again as my point is still just as valid now as it was when I originally posted it in reply #47 on the 9th November:

We don't know who you are and so it is quite fair & reasonable for members to ask questions to ensure they are not being led up the proverbial garden path. This is in no way a reflection of mis-trust; quoting the source merely ensures that members will view you as credible.

The bottom line is this - members are quite entitled to ask you to justify what you say, as they do generally see this forum as a reliable source of information. Your answer to the question came across as 'how dare they even ask'. You are welcome to adopt that attitude if you like, just don't be surprised if members don't believe everything you say. It's up to you but I wouldn't expect any sympathy for your argument from the forum staff.

Whilst there was some thread drift, which is quite natural, we did come back onto the subject in your OP - the dates for withdrawal list - when the source of your list was questioned. So we should have acted when the thread was brought back on topic? I really do wonder sometimes why I took on the job of being on the forum's staff....