Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 20:43:30 GMT
I once heard a story that LRT or LT appointed too many Inexperienced Young Graduates onto their Management Training Schemes, and as a consequence the 1983 Tube Stock was produced, with bogies that fell apart, and a whole host of other fundamental problems in them. Whether it is true or not I take with a pinch of salt. Surely Rush-Promotion of Inexperienced New Graduates into managerial positions may lead to all sorts of problems, such as poor industrial relations. In the olden days LT staff worked up the ranks until they got to the Manager role, as nothing beats hands on time served experience. Likewise the 1992 Tube Stock was probably designed by a team of inexperienced graduates, and the problems do show in a conspicuous manner on the Central Line trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Feb 2, 2017 0:28:00 GMT
I once heard a story that LRT or LT appointed too many Inexperienced Young Graduates onto their Management Training Schemes, and as a consequence the 1983 Tube Stock was produced, with bogies that fell apart, and a whole host of other fundamental problems in them. Whether it is true or not I take with a pinch of salt. Surely Rush-Promotion of Inexperienced New Graduates into managerial positions may lead to all sorts of problems, such as poor industrial relations. In the olden days LT staff worked up the ranks until they got to the Manager role, as nothing beats hands on time served experience. Likewise the 1992 Tube Stock was probably designed by a team of inexperienced graduates, and the problems do show in a conspicuous manner on the Central Line trains. With respect London Transport and the successors always had a graduate recruitment programme. Sir Peter Hendy was one to prove that it worked. Graduates were moved around various departments to get experience. The 1983 stock was not that a radical change from 1973 stock. The disaster was the choice of single doors. This was put forward by experienced engineers to reduce the number of door motors. Different story with 1992 stock. The whole project was outsourced to reduce internal costs. The prototypes were supposed to show which train was best. Unfortunately the accountants won. The demise of the 1983 stock was down to the door issue. Modification would have been too costly to work with newer trains. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Feb 2, 2017 2:13:37 GMT
I once heard a story that LRT or LT appointed too many Inexperienced Young Graduates onto their Management Training Schemes, and as a consequence the 1983 Tube Stock was produced, with bogies that fell apart, and a whole host of other fundamental problems in them. Whether it is true or not I take with a pinch of salt. Surely Rush-Promotion of Inexperienced New Graduates into managerial positions may lead to all sorts of problems, such as poor industrial relations. In the olden days LT staff worked up the ranks until they got to the Manager role, as nothing beats hands on time served experience. Likewise the 1992 Tube Stock was probably designed by a team of inexperienced graduates, and the problems do show in a conspicuous manner on the Central Line trains. With respect London Transport and the successors always had a graduate recruitment programme. Sir Peter Hendy was one to prove that it worked. Graduates were moved around various departments to get experience. The 1983 stock was not that a radical change from 1973 stock. The disaster was the choice of single doors. This was put forward by experienced engineers to reduce the number of door motors. Different story with 1992 stock. The whole project was outsourced to reduce internal costs. The prototypes were supposed to show which train was best. Unfortunately the accountants won. The demise of the 1983 stock was down to the door issue. Modification would have been too costly to work with newer trains. Coupled with the need for additional stock and part single leaf part double would never be a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 2, 2017 8:25:04 GMT
Different story with 1992 stock. The whole project was outsourced to reduce internal costs. The prototypes were supposed to show which train was best. Unfortunately the accountants won. I read recently (possibly even on this site) that the selection was made on the basis of which prototype the public liked best, which is an even less reliable indicator of quality than the accountancy test. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Feb 2, 2017 10:52:15 GMT
Different story with 1992 stock. The whole project was outsourced to reduce internal costs. The prototypes were supposed to show which train was best. Unfortunately the accountants won. I read recently (possibly even on this site) that the selection was made on the basis of which prototype the public liked best, which is an even less reliable indicator of quality than the accountancy test. The public were invited to comment on the interiors - this would not have affected the choice of the important bits. The reason the 1992 stock has some recessed seats is that people were hitting their heads on the handrails when they rose from the seats at Woodford on one of the prototypes. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Feb 16, 2017 21:49:44 GMT
I once heard a story that LRT or LT appointed too many Inexperienced Young Graduates onto their Management Training Schemes, and as a consequence the 1983 Tube Stock was produced, with bogies that fell apart, and a whole host of other fundamental problems in them. Whether it is true or not I take with a pinch of salt. Surely Rush-Promotion of Inexperienced New Graduates into managerial positions may lead to all sorts of problems, such as poor industrial relations. In the olden days LT staff worked up the ranks until they got to the Manager role, as nothing beats hands on time served experience. Likewise the 1992 Tube Stock was probably designed by a team of inexperienced graduates, and the problems do show in a conspicuous manner on the Central Line trains. You really have it in for the graduate entry route, don't you? The 1992 stock was a design and build contract awarded to ABB (or was it still BREL then?) and had nothing to do with LU's rolling stock engineers at all. |
|
