LU Fleet strike (Train Inspections)

Certainly based on what little I know about this, it seems the union is fully justified in taking this action. Even if it doesn't impact safety (which I'm dubious about), it certainly isn't going to improve reliability.

I'm pretty sure its 48 hours but as I've been on almost permanent lates since 2012 I've not actually brought a train into service for a very long time.

The train “prep” carried out by depot staff is very much safety related as they check the brake system, trip cock operation, passenger alarm operation and door operation amongst many other system checks.

Some serious questions need to be asked: 1)Where is the evidence that this increase in time intervals wil have no effect on reliability AND safety?
2)What actions will be taken if a driver refuses to take out a unit?
3)God forbid it will happen, but if anything serious happens due to this extended time interval, Who's going to take ULTIMATE responsibilty(Silly question)

Sorry I phrased that poorly - I meant I regarded LU/TfL's statements that it wouldn't affect safety as dubious.

(1) is a good question. Part of it should be how many items are found during these checks and how serious they are. For instance, how often do passenger emergency alarms fail? How often are they used? Yes, they should always work, but if fail once in 1000 days, is a daily test really necessary?

Discuss .

No ballot required. If a train hasn't been prepared and signed off by depot staff within the 24 hour period prior to taking a train out of a depot, a driver will refuse to take it. It's LU's own rule!


Nothing will happen to that driver. As above, if a train hasn't been prepared and signed off by depot staff within the 24 hour period prior to taking a train out of a depot, a driver will refuse to take it. That is the correct action required to be taken by drivers as per LU's own rules.


Depot staff have to sign the defect log book on board the train (one in each cab) when they complete their daily checks, including date and time.

The driver that brings a given a train out of the depot must check the defect log book and satisfy themselves that the train was duly prepared by depot staff within the previous 24 hour period. Failure to carry out this check is a disciplinary offence.

Subsequent drivers might become aware during the course of the day, but they would need to know when the train actually entered service and with reforms and such like it may be impossible to know when that was for sure (at least to a driver). The defect log book in a particular cab may show when the first driver carried out a brake test but we only sign the end we take into service so its not a reliable method. I doubt many drivers ever bother to try and work it out TBH - the disciplinary consequences associated with that first driver making the correct checks are such that there is a high degree of confidence the check is carried out by first drivers correctly 100% of the time.

If a train was discovered to have entered service without the correct checks having been made within appropriate time frames, it will be withdrawn service as soon as the discovery is made and will then run empty to the nearest depot. This can apply and dose happen for all manner of things; not just train prep errors.

I couldn't tell from this thread or the article below on the RMT website, does LU propose to extend inspection frequencies on all types of trains, or just to the more modern train types like the S Stock which probably have more self-diagnosis features and require less maintenance?

www.rmt.org.uk/news/key-london-underground-maintenance-staff-vote-to-strike/

But surely the whole point is that LU are proposing to change the rules?

Thank you for that, and I agree that vital equipment should be regularly inspected. But as hourly and annually are both regular, what’s of interest is what the likelihood is that an extended period between regular inspections will cause an increased level of failure.

They'd probably institute a separate dispute for not having sufficient consultation on a rule change!

A fair answer, thank you. I ask because I see “safety” being cited as the reason for this dispute, which frankly looks as much like it’s a jobs and membership dispute.

This is what we have been told so far and I can only really talk about the s-stock fleet, but a report was carried out by an external company into whether extending checks would compromise safety and according to the report it would not. I haven't seen the report (it's quite a comprehensive one too), however another union has read it and can't dispute it.

The following checks will be done on the s-stock on a daily basis, tripcock test, HMI check, log book inspection and walk through. I'm sure there was a 5th one but cannot remember it. There won't be any job losses, but as we know LU are trying to save money and of course overtime comes into play if you don't need as many staff to prep the trains at night if the prep is extended. There is heavy overhaul coming up etc so staff will move onto other areas of maintenance.

This extended time between checks you can probably get away with on the newer stock, since the s-stock monitors itself and the control room techs (CRT) at Hammersmith are looking for potential issues but like as other people have said, whether this will work on older stock, I can't really speak for.

There is no argument about the fact that if you increase time between preps, the chances of a safety related issue being found will go down.

While I feel the union is in their right to suggest strike action, there is a key piece of information that has been missed it seems. Prep is recorded by the train on the newer trains, so unless someone is not doing prep correctly, all the information is right there.

On older trains, where prep is not recorded by the train, prep relies on the fact the prep has been done correctly. If you did a prep and found an issue, it should be reported. If you find an issue and correct it without taking note on the paperwork, the train is now more reliable on paper as no work is being done on it etc.